skip to main content


Title: The Parallel Persistent Memory Model
We consider a parallel computational model, the Parallel Persistent Memory model, comprised of P processors, each with a fast local ephemeral memory of limited size, and sharing a large persistent memory. The model allows for each processor to fault at any time (with bounded probability), and possibly restart. When a processor faults, all of its state and local ephemeral memory is lost, but the persistent memory remains. This model is motivated by upcoming non-volatile memories that are nearly as fast as existing random access memory, are accessible at the granularity of cache lines, and have the capability of surviving power outages. It is further motivated by the observation that in large parallel systems, failure of processors and their caches is not unusual. We present several results for the model, using an approach that breaks a computation into capsules, each of which can be safely run multiple times. For the single-processor version we describe how to simulate any program in the RAM, the external memory model, or the ideal cache model with an expected constant factor overhead. For the multiprocessor version we describe how to efficiently implement a work-stealing scheduler within the model such that it handles both soft faults, with a processor restarting, and hard faults, with a processor permanently failing. For any multithreaded fork-join computation that is race free, write-after-read conflict free and has W work, D depth, and C maximum capsule work in the absence of faults, the scheduler guarantees a time bound on the model of O(W/P_A+ (DP/P_A ) log_{1/(Cf )} W) in expectation, where P is the maximum number of processors, P_A is the average number, and f ≤ 1/(2C) is the probability a processor faults between successive persistent memory accesses. Within the model, and using the proposed methods, we develop efficient algorithms for parallel prefix sums, merging, sorting, and matrix multiply.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1533858
NSF-PAR ID:
10080493
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA)
Volume:
30
Page Range / eLocation ID:
247 to 258
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    Because of its many desirable properties, such as its ability to control effects and thus potentially disastrous race conditions, functional programming offers a viable approach to programming modern multicore computers. Over the past decade several parallel functional languages, typically based on dialects of ML and Haskell, have been developed. These languages, however, have traditionally underperformed procedural languages (such as C and Java). The primary reason for this is their hunger for memory, which only grows with parallelism, causing traditional memory management techniques to buckle under increased demand for memory. Recent work opened a new angle of attack on this problem by identifying a memory property of determinacy-race-free parallel programs, called disentanglement, which limits the knowledge of concurrent computations about each other’s memory allocations. The work has showed some promise in delivering good time scalability. In this paper, we present provably space-efficient automatic memory management techniques for determinacy-race-free functional parallel programs, allowing both pure and imperative programs where memory may be destructively updated. We prove that for a program with sequential live memory of R * , any P -processor garbage-collected parallel run requires at most O ( R * · P ) memory. We also prove a work bound of O ( W + R * P ) for P -processor executions, accounting also for the cost of garbage collection. To achieve these results, we integrate thread scheduling with memory management. The idea is to coordinate memory allocation and garbage collection with thread scheduling decisions so that each processor can allocate memory without synchronization and independently collect a portion of memory by consulting a collection policy, which we formulate. The collection policy is fully distributed and does not require communicating with other processors. We show that the approach is practical by implementing it as an extension to the MPL compiler for Parallel ML. Our experimental results confirm our theoretical bounds and show that the techniques perform and scale well. 
    more » « less
  3. In this work, a high-speed and energy-efficient comparator-based N ear- S ensor L ocal B inary P attern accelerator architecture (NS-LBP) is proposed to execute a novel local binary pattern deep neural network. First, inspired by recent LBP networks, we design an approximate, hardware-oriented, and multiply-accumulate (MAC)-free network named Ap-LBP for efficient feature extraction, further reducing the computation complexity. Then, we develop NS-LBP as a processing-in-SRAM unit and a parallel in-memory LBP algorithm to process images near the sensor in a cache, remarkably reducing the power consumption of data transmission to an off-chip processor. Our circuit-to-application co-simulation results on MNIST and SVHN datasets demonstrate minor accuracy degradation compared to baseline CNN and LBP-network models, while NS-LBP achieves 1.25 GHz and an energy-efficiency of 37.4 TOPS/W. NS-LBP reduces energy consumption by 2.2× and execution time by a factor of 4× compared to the best recent LBP-based networks. 
    more » « less
  4. In the parallel paging problem, there are p processors that share a cache of size k. The goal is to partition the cache among the processors over time in order to minimize their average completion time. For this long-standing open problem, we give tight upper and lower bounds of ⇥(log p) on the competitive ratio with O(1) resource augmentation. A key idea in both our algorithms and lower bounds is to relate the problem of parallel paging to the seemingly unrelated problem of green paging. In green paging, there is an energy-optimized processor that can temporarily turn off one or more of its cache banks (thereby reducing power consumption), so that the cache size varies between a maximum size k and a minimum size k/p. The goal is to minimize the total energy consumed by the computation, which is proportional to the integral of the cache size over time. We show that any efficient solution to green paging can be converted into an efficient solution to parallel paging, and that any lower bound for green paging can be converted into a lower bound for parallel paging, in both cases in a black-box fashion. We then show that, with O(1) resource augmentation, the optimal competitive ratio for deterministic online green paging is ⇥(log p), which, in turn, implies the same bounds for deterministic online parallel paging. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    In the parallel paging problem, there are $\pP$ processors that share a cache of size $k$. The goal is to partition the cache among the \procs over time in order to minimize their average completion time. For this long-standing open problem, we give tight upper and lower bounds of $\Theta(\log \p)$ on the competitive ratio with $O(1)$ resource augmentation. A key idea in both our algorithms and lower bounds is to relate the problem of parallel paging to the seemingly unrelated problem of green paging. In green paging, there is an energy-optimized processor that can temporarily turn off one or more of its cache banks (thereby reducing power consumption), so that the cache size varies between a maximum size $k$ and a minimum size $k/\p$. The goal is to minimize the total energy consumed by the computation, which is proportional to the integral of the cache size over time. We show that any efficient solution to green paging can be converted into an efficient solution to parallel paging, and that any lower bound for green paging can be converted into a lower bound for parallel paging, in both cases in a black-box fashion. We then show that, with $O(1)$ resource augmentation, the optimal competitive ratio for deterministic online green paging is $\Theta(\log \p)$, which, in turn, implies the same bounds for deterministic online parallel paging. 
    more » « less