The performance of today's in-memory indexes is bottlenecked by the memory latency/bandwidth wall. Processing-in-memory (PIM) is an emerging approach that potentially mitigates this bottleneck, by enabling low-latency memory access whose aggregate memory bandwidth scales with the number of PIM nodes. There is an inherent tension, however, between minimizing inter-node communication and achieving load balance in PIM systems, in the presence of workload skew. This paper presents PIM-tree , an ordered index for PIM systems that achieves both low communication and high load balance, regardless of the degree of skew in data and queries. Our skew-resistant index is based on a novel division of labor between the host CPU and PIM nodes, which leverages the strengths of each. We introduce push-pull search , which dynamically decides whether to push queries to a PIM-tree node or pull the node's keys back to the CPU based on workload skew. Combined with other PIM-friendly optimizations ( shadow subtrees and chunked skip lists ), our PIM-tree provides high-throughput, (guaranteed) low communication, and (guaranteed) high load balance, for batches of point queries, updates, and range scans. We implement PIM-tree, in addition to prior proposed PIM indexes, on the latest PIM system from UPMEM, with 32 CPU cores and 2048 PIM nodes. On workloads with 500 million keys and batches of 1 million queries, the throughput using PIM-trees is up to 69.7X and 59.1x higher than the two best prior PIM-based methods. As far as we know these are the first implementations of an ordered index on a real PIM system.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 17, 2024
PIM-trie: A Skew-resistant Trie for Processing-in-Memory
Memory latency and bandwidth are significant bottlenecks in designing in-memory indexes. Processing-in-memory (PIM), an emerging hardware design approach, alleviates this problem by embedding processors in memory modules, enabling low-latency memory access whose aggregated bandwidth scales linearly with the number of PIM modules. Despite recent work in balanced comparison-based indexes on PIM systems, building efficient tries for PIMs remains an open challenge due to tries' inherently unbalanced shape.
This paper presents the PIM-trie, the first batch-parallel radix-based index for PIM systems that provides load balance and low communication under adversary-controlled workloads. We introduce trie matching-matching a query trie of a batch against the compressed data trie-as a key building block for PIM-friendly index operations. Our algorithm combines (i) hash-based comparisons for coarse-grained work distribution/elimination and (ii) bit-by-bit comparisons for fine-grained matching. Combined with other techniques (meta-block decomposition, selective recursive replication, differentiated verification), PIM-trie supports LongestCommonPrefix, Insert, and Delete in O(logP) communication rounds per batch and O(l/w) communication volume per string, where P is the number of PIM modules, l is the string length in bits, and w is the machine word size. Moreover, work and communication are load-balanced among modules whp, even under worst-case skew.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10467407
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 14
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Orlando FL USA
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Mikolaj Bojanczyk ; Emanuela Merelli ; David P. Woodruff (Ed.)Two equal length strings are a parameterized match (p-match) iff there exists a one-to-one function that renames the symbols in one string to those in the other. The Parameterized Suffix Tree (PST) [Baker, STOC' 93] is a fundamental data structure that handles various string matching problems under this setting. The PST of a text T[1,n] over an alphabet Σ of size σ takes O(nlog n) bits of space. It can report any entry in (parameterized) (i) suffix array, (ii) inverse suffix array, and (iii) longest common prefix (LCP) array in O(1) time. Given any pattern P as a query, a position i in T is an occurrence iff T[i,i+|P|-1] and P are a p-match. The PST can count the number of occurrences of P in T in time O(|P|log σ) and then report each occurrence in time proportional to that of accessing a suffix array entry. An important question is, can we obtain a compressed version of PST that takes space close to the text’s size of nlogσ bits and still support all three functionalities mentioned earlier? In SODA' 17, Ganguly et al. answered this question partially by presenting an O(nlogσ) bit index that can support (parameterized) suffix array and inverse suffix array operations in O(log n) time. However, the compression of the (parameterized) LCP array and the possibility of faster suffix array and inverse suffix array queries in compact space were left open. In this work, we obtain a compact representation of the (parameterized) LCP array. With this result, in conjunction with three new (parameterized) suffix array representations, we obtain the first set of PST representations in o(nlog n) bits (when logσ = o(log n)) as follows. Here ε > 0 is an arbitrarily small constant. - Space O(n logσ) bits and query time O(log_σ^ε n); - Space O(n logσlog log_σ n) bits and query time O(log log_σ n); and - Space O(n logσ log^ε_σ n) bits and query time O(1). The first trade-off is an improvement over Ganguly et al.’s result, whereas our third trade-off matches the optimal time performance of Baker’s PST while squeezing the space by a factor roughly log_σ n. We highlight that our trade-offs match the space-and-time bounds of the best-known compressed text indexes for exact pattern matching and further improvement is highly unlikely.more » « less
-
In-memory data management systems, such as key-value stores, have become an essential infrastructure in today's big-data processing and cloud computing. They rely on efficient index structures to access data. While unordered indexes, such as hash tables, can perform point search with O(1) time, they cannot be used in many scenarios where range queries must be supported. Many ordered indexes, such as B+ tree and skip list, have a O(log N) lookup cost, where N is number of keys in an index. For an ordered index hosting billions of keys, it may take more than 30 key-comparisons in a lookup, which is an order of magnitude more expensive than that on a hash table. With availability of large memory and fast network in today's data centers, this O(log N) time is taking a heavy toll on applications that rely on ordered indexes. In this paper we introduce a new ordered index structure, named Wormhole, that takes O(log L) worst-case time for looking up a key with a length of L. The low cost is achieved by simultaneously leveraging strengths of three indexing structures, namely hash table, prefix tree, and B+ tree, to orchestrate a single fast ordered index. Wormhole's range operations can be performed by a linear scan of a list after an initial lookup. This improvement of access efficiency does not come at a price of compromised space efficiency. Instead, Wormhole's index space is comparable to those of B+ tree and skip list. Experiment results show that Wormhole outperforms skip list, B+ tree, ART, and Masstree by up to 8.4x, 4.9x, 4.3x, and 6.6x in terms of key lookup throughput, respectively.more » « less
-
The slowdown of Moore’s Law, combined with advances in 3D stacking of logic and memory, have pushed architects to revisit the concept of processing-in-memory (PIM) to overcome the memory wall bottleneck. This PIM renaissance finds itself in a very different computing landscape from the one twenty years ago, as more and more computation shifts to the cloud. Most PIM architecture papers still focus on best-effort applications, while PIM’s impact on latency-critical cloud applications is not well understood. This paper explores how datacenters can exploit PIM architectures in the context of latency-critical applications. We adopt a general-purpose cloud server with HBM-based, 3D-stacked logic+memory modules, and study the impact of PIM on six diverse interactive cloud applications. We reveal the previously neglected opportunity that PIM presents to these services, and show the importance of properly managing PIM-related resources to meet the QoS targets of interactive services and maximize resource efficiency. Then, we present PIMCloud, a QoS-aware resource manager designed for cloud systems with PIM allowing colocation of multiple latency-critical and best-effort applications. We show that PIMCloud efficiently manages PIM resources: it (1) improves effective machine utilization by up to 70% and 85% (average 24% and 33%) under 2-app and 3-app mixes, compared to the best state-of-the-art manager; (2) helps latency-critical applications meet QoS; and (3) adapts to varying load patterns.more » « less
