Software versus hardware shared-memory implementation: a case study

Abstract

We compare the performance of software-supported shared memory on a general-purpose network to hardware-supported shared memory on a dedicated interconnect.Up to eight processors, our results are based on the execution of a set of application programs on a SGI 4D/480 multiprocessor and on TreadMarks, a distributed shared memory system that runs on a Fore ATM LAN of DECstation-5000/240s. Since the DECstation and the 4D/480 use the same processor, primary cache, and compiler, the shared-memory implementation is the principal difference between the systems. Our results show that TreadMarks performs comparably to the 4D/480 for applications with moderate amounts of synchronization, but the difference in performance grows as the synchronization frequency increases. For applications that require a large amount of memory bandwidth, TreadMarks can perform better than the SGI 4D/480.Beyond eight processors, our results are based on execution-driven simulation. Specifically, we compare a software implementation on a general-purpose network of uniprocessor nodes, a hardware implementation using a directory-based protocol on a dedicated interconnect, and a combined implementation using software to provide shared memory between multiprocessor nodes with hardware implementing shared memory within a node. For the modest size of the problems that we can simulate, the hardware implementation scales well and the software implementation scales poorly. The combined approach delivers performance close to that of the hardware implementation for applications with small to moderate synchronization rates and good locality. Reductions in communication overhead improve the performance of the software and the combined approach, but synchronization remains a bottleneck.