Entry Chandra:1994:WTS from sigplan1990.bib

Last update: Thu Apr 12 03:37:15 MDT 2012                Valid HTML 3.2!

Index sections

Top | Symbols | Numbers | Math | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

BibTeX entry

@Article{Chandra:1994:WTS,
  author =       "Satish Chandra and James R. Larus and Anne Rogers",
  title =        "Where is time spent in message-passing and
                 shared-memory programs?",
  journal =      j-SIGPLAN,
  volume =       "29",
  number =       "11",
  pages =        "61--73",
  month =        nov,
  year =         "1994",
  CODEN =        "SINODQ",
  ISSN =         "0362-1340 (print), 1523-2867 (print), 1558-1160 (electronic)",
  ISSN-L =       "0362-1340",
  bibdate =      "Sun Dec 14 09:16:57 MST 2003",
  bibsource =    "http://portal.acm.org/; http://www.acm.org/pubs/toc/",
  URL =          "http://www.acm.org:80/pubs/citations/proceedings/asplos/195473/p61-chandra/",
  abstract =     "Message passing and shared memory are two techniques
                 parallel programs use for coordination and
                 communication. This paper studies the strengths and
                 weaknesses of these two mechanisms by comparing
                 equivalent, well-written message-passing and
                 shared-memory programs running on similar hardware. To
                 ensure that our measurements are comparable, we
                 produced two carefully tuned versions of each program
                 and measured them on closely-related simulators of a
                 message-passing and a shared-memory machine, both of
                 which are based on same underlying hardware
                 assumptions. We examined the behavior and performance
                 of each program carefully. Although the cost of
                 computation in each pair of programs was similar,
                 synchronization and communication differed greatly. We
                 found that message-passing's advantage over
                 shared-memory is not clear-cut. Three of the four
                 shared-memory programs ran at roughly the same speed as
                 their message-passing equivalent, even though their
                 communication patterns were different.",
  acknowledgement = ack-nhfb,
  classification = "C5440 (Multiprocessing systems); C6110P (Parallel
                 programming); C6150N (Distributed systems software)",
  conflocation = "San Jose, CA, USA; 4-7 Oct. 1994",
  conftitle =    "Sixth International Conference on Architectural
                 Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
                 (ASPLOS-VI)",
  corpsource =   "Dept. of Comput. Sci., Wisconsin Univ., Madison, WI,
                 USA",
  keywords =     "communication patterns; design; hardware assumptions;
                 measurement; message passing; message passing machine;
                 message-passing; parallel programming; parallel
                 programs; performance; shared memory machine; shared
                 memory programs; shared memory systems; shared-memory
                 programs; software performance evaluation; software
                 performance evaluation systems; synchronization;
                 theory",
  sponsororg =   "ACM; IEEE Comput. Soc",
  subject =      "{\bf D.4.4} Software, OPERATING SYSTEMS,
                 Communications Management, Message sending. {\bf B.3.2}
                 Hardware, MEMORY STRUCTURES, Design Styles, Shared
                 memory. {\bf C.1.2} Computer Systems Organization,
                 PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES, Multiple Data Stream
                 Architectures (Multiprocessors), Parallel processors**.
                 {\bf C.4} Computer Systems Organization, PERFORMANCE OF
                 SYSTEMS.",
  treatment =    "P Practical",
}

Related entries