Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) exploit large amounts of thread-level parallelism to provide high instruction throughput and to efficiently hide long-latency stalls. The resulting high throughput, along with continued programmability improvements, have made GPUs an essential computational resource in many domains. Applications from different domains can have vastly different compute and memory demands on the GPU. In a large-scale computing environment, to efficiently accommodate such wide-ranging demands without leaving GPU resources underutilized, multiple applications can share a single GPU, akin to how multiple applications execute concurrently on a CPU. Multi-application concurrency requires several support mechanisms in both hardware and software. One such key mechanism is virtual memory, which manages and protects the address space of each application. However, modern GPUs lack the extensive support for multi-application concurrency available in CPUs, and as a result suffer from high performance overheads when shared by multiple applications, as we demonstrate. We perform a detailed analysis of which multi-application concurrency support limitations hurt GPU performance the most. We find that the poor performance is largely a result of the virtual memory mechanisms employed in modern GPUs. In particular, poor address translation performance is a key obstacle to efficient GPU sharing. State-of-the-art address translation mechanisms, which were designed for single-application execution, experience significant inter-application interference when multiple applications spatially share the GPU. This contention leads to frequent misses in the shared translation lookaside buffer (TLB), where a single miss can induce long-latency stalls for hundreds of threads. As a result, the GPU often cannot schedule enough threads to successfully hide the stalls, which diminishes system throughput and becomes a first-order performance concern. Based on our analysis, we propose MASK, a new GPU framework that provides low-overhead virtual memory support for the concurrent execution of multiple applications. MASK consists of three novel address-translation-aware cache and memory management mechanisms that work together to largely reduce the overhead of address translation: (1) a token-based technique to reduce TLB contention, (2) a bypassing mechanism to improve the effectiveness of cached address translations, and (3) an application-aware memory scheduling scheme to reduce the interference between address translation and data requests. Our evaluations show that MASK restores much of the throughput lost to TLB contention. Relative to a state-of-the-art GPU TLB, MASK improves system throughput by 57.8%, improves IPC throughput by 43.4%, and reduces application-level unfairness by 22.4%. MASK's system throughput is within 23.2% of an ideal GPU system with no address translation overhead.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on September 30, 2024
The Impact of Page Size and Microarchitecture on Instruction Address Translation Overhead
As the volume of data processed by applications has increased, considerable attention has been paid to data address translation overheads, leading to the widespread use of larger page sizes (“superpages”) and multi-level translation lookaside buffers (TLBs). However, far less attention has been paid to instruction address translation and its relation to TLB and pipeline structure. In prior work, we quantified the impact of using code superpages on a variety of widely used applications, ranging from compilers to web user-interface frameworks, and the impact of sharing page table pages for executables and shared libraries. Within this article, we augment those results by first uncovering the effects that microarchitectural differences between Intel Skylake and AMD Zen+, particularly their different TLB organizations, have on instruction address translation overhead. This analysis provides some key insights into the microarchitectural design decisions that impact the cost of instruction address translation. First, a lower-level (level 2) TLB that has both instruction and data mappings competing for space within the same structure allows better overall performance and utilization when using code superpages. Code superpages not only reduce instruction address translation overhead but also indirectly reduce data address translation overhead. In fact, for a few applications, the use of just a few code superpages has a larger impact on overall performance than the use of a much larger number of data superpages. Second, a level 1 (L1) TLB with separate structures for different page sizes may require careful tuning of the superpage promotion policy for code, and a correspondingly suboptimal utilization of the level 2 TLB. In particular, increasing the number of superpages when the size of the L1 superpage structure is small may result in more L1 TLB misses for some applications. Moreover, on some microarchitectures, the cost of these misses can be highly variable, because replacement is delayed until all of the in-flight instructions mapped by the victim entry are retired. Hence, more superpage promotions can result in a performance regression. Finally, our findings also make a case for first-class OS support for superpages on ordinary files containing executables and shared libraries, as well as a more aggressive superpage policy for code.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10464985
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1544-3566
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 25
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Level-one data cache (L1 DC) and data translation lookaside buffer (DTLB) accesses impact energy usage as they frequently occur and each L1 DC and DTLB access uses significantly more energy than a register file access. Often, multiple memory operations will reference the same cache line using the same register, such as when iterating through an array. We propose to memoize L1 DC access information, such as the L1 DC data array way and the DTLB way, by associating this information with the register used to access it. When a load or store calculates the memory address, we detect whether the calculated address shares the cache line memoized with the base register. If so, we avoid the L1 DC tag array access and the DTLB access to determine the L1 DC way and instead use the memoized information. In addition, only a single data array way in a set- associative L1 DC needs to be accessed during a load instruction when the L1 DC way has been memoized. Our nonspeculative memoization approach can be applied before a speculative approach, allowing a significant reduction in data access energy usage for existing executables with no ISA modifications.more » « less
-
The classical paging problem, introduced by Sleator and Tarjan in 1985, formalizes the problem of caching pages in RAM in order to minimize IOs. Their online formulation ignores the cost of address translation: programs refer to data via virtual addresses, and these must be translated into physical locations in RAM. Although the cost of an individual address translation is much smaller than that of an IO, every memory access involves an address translation, whereas IOs can be infrequent. In practice, one can spend money to avoid paging by over-provisioning RAM; in contrast, address translation is effectively unavoidable. Thus address-translation costs can sometimes dominate paging costs, and systems must simultane- ously optimize both. To mitigate the cost of address translation, all modern CPUs have translation lookaside buffers (TLBs), which are hardware caches of common address translations. What makes TLBs interesting is that a single TLB entry can potentially encode the address translation for many addresses. This is typically achieved via the use of huge pages, which translate runs of contiguous virtual addresses to runs of contiguous physical addresses. Huge pages reduce TLB misses at the cost of increasing the IOs needed to maintain contiguity in RAM. This tradeoff between TLB misses and IOs suggests that the classical paging problem does not tell the full story. This paper introduces the Address-Translation Problem, which formalizes the problem of maintaining a TLB, a page table, and RAM in order to minimize the total cost of both TLB misses and IOs. We present an algorithm that achieves the benefits of huge pages for TLB misses without the downsides of huge pages for IOs.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The adversarial model presented by trusted execution environments (TEEs) has prompted researchers to investigate unusual attack vectors. One particularly powerful class of controlled-channel attacks abuses page-table modifications to reliably track enclave memory accesses at a page-level granularity. In contrast to noisy microarchitectural timing leakage, this line of deterministic controlled-channel attacks abuses indispensable architectural interfaces and hence cannot be mitigated by tweaking microarchitectural resources. We propose an innovative controlled-channel attack, named CopyCat, that deterministically counts the number of instructions executed within a single enclave code page. We show that combining the instruction counts harvested by CopyCat with traditional, coarse-grained page-level leakage allows the accurate reconstruction of enclave control flow at a maximal instruction-level granularity. CopyCat can identify intra-page and intra-cache line branch decisions that ultimately may only differ in a single instruction, underscoring that even extremely subtle control flow deviations can be deterministically leaked from secure enclaves. We demonstrate the improved resolution and practicality of CopyCat on Intel SGX in an extensive study of single-trace and deterministic attacks against cryptographic implementations, and give novel algorithmic attacks to perform single-trace key extraction that exploit subtle vulnerabilities in the latest versions of widely-used cryptographic libraries. Our findings highlight the importance of stricter verification of cryptographic implementations, especially in the context of TEEs.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmet is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert data scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge.more » « less
