A Lightweight Infrastructure for
Graph Analytics
Donald Nguyen
Andrew Lenharth and Keshav Pingali
The University of Texas at Austin
What is Graph Analytics?
• Algorithms to compute properties of
graphs
– Connected components, shortest
paths, centrality measures,
diameter, PageRank, …
• Many applications
– Google, path routing, friend
recommendations, network analysis
• Difficult to implement on a large
scale
– Data sets are large, data accesses
are irregular
– Need parallelismand efficient
runtimes
Bridges of Konigsberg
The Social Network
Contributions
• A lightweight infrastructure for graph
analytics based on improvements to the
Galois system
– Example: scalable priority scheduling
• Orders of magnitude faster than third-party
graph DSLs for many applications and inputs
– Galois permits better algorithms to be written
– Galois infrastructure more scalable
3
Outline
1. Abstraction for graph analytics applications
and implementation in Galois system
2. One piece of infrastructure: priority
scheduling
3. Evaluation of Galois system versus graph
analytics DSLs
4
Example: SSSP
• Find the shortest distance from source
node to all other nodes in a graph
– Label nodes with tentativedistance
– Assume non-negativeedge weights
• Algorithms
– Chaotic relaxation O(2V)
– Bellman-Ford O(VE)
– Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V)
• Uses priority queue
– Δ-stepping
• Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work
• Δ=1, O(E log V)
• Δ=∞, O(VE)
• Different algorithms are different
schedules for applying relaxations
– SSSP needs priority scheduling for work
efficiency
1
9
2
3
1∞
∞
0
1 9
4
3
1
3
Operator
Edge relaxation
∞
2
5
Example: SSSP
• Find the shortest distance from source
node to all other nodes in a graph
– Label nodes with tentativedistance
– Assume non-negativeedge weights
• Algorithms
– Chaotic relaxation O(2V)
– Bellman-Ford O(VE)
– Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V)
• Uses priority queue
– Δ-stepping
• Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work
• Δ=1, O(E log V)
• Δ=∞, O(VE)
• Different algorithms are different
schedules for applying relaxations
– SSSP needs priority scheduling for work
efficiency
1
9
2
3
1∞
∞
0
Active edge
1 9
4
3
1
3
Operator
Edge relaxation
∞
2
6
Example: SSSP
• Find the shortest distance from source
node to all other nodes in a graph
– Label nodes with tentativedistance
– Assume non-negativeedge weights
• Algorithms
– Chaotic relaxation O(2V)
– Bellman-Ford O(VE)
– Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V)
• Uses priority queue
– Δ-stepping
• Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work
• Δ=1, O(E log V)
• Δ=∞, O(VE)
• Different algorithms are different
schedules for applying relaxations
– SSSP needs priority scheduling for work
efficiency
1
9
2
3
1∞
∞
0
Active edge
Neighborhood
Activity
1 9
4
3
1
3
Operator
Edge relaxation
∞
2
7
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
Algorithm
8
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
• What is the operator?
– Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs
– Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by
adding/removing nodes and edges
• Where/When does it execute?
– Autonomous scheduling: activities execute
transactionally
– Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds
• Read values refer to previous rounds
• Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with
reduction, etc.
Algorithm
9
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
• What is the operator?
– Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs
– Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by
adding/removing nodes and edges
• Where/When does it execute?
– Autonomous scheduling: activities execute
transactionally
– Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds
• Read values refer to previous rounds
• Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with
reduction, etc.
Algorithm
10
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
• What is the operator?
– Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs
– Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by
adding/removing nodes and edges
• Where/When does it execute?
– Autonomous scheduling: activities execute
transactionally
– Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds
• Read values refer to previous rounds
• Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with
reduction, etc.
Algorithm
11
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
• What is the operator?
– Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs
– Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by
adding/removing nodes and edges
• Where/When does it execute?
– Autonomous scheduling: activities execute
transactionally
– Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds
• Read values refer to previous rounds
• Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with
reduction, etc.
Algorithm
ba
c
12
Galois System
Parallel Program = Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure
Operators Schedules Data StructureAPI Calls
Schedulers Data Structures
AllocatorThread Primitives
Multicore
User Program
Galois System
13
Outline
1. Abstraction for graph analytics applications
and implementation in Galois system
2. One piece of infrastructure: priority
scheduling
3. Evaluation of Galois system versus DSLs
14
Galois Infrastructure for Scheduling
• Library of different schedulers
– FIFO, LIFO, Priority, …
– DSL for specifying scheduling policies
• Nguyen and Pingali (ASPLOS ’11)
15
Priority Scheduling
• Concurrent priority queue
– Implemented in TBB, java.concurrent
– Does not scale: our tasks are very fine-grain
• Sequence of bags
– One bag per priority level
– High overhead for finding non-empty, urgent-
priority bags
16
Ordered by Metric (OBIM)
• Sparse sequence of Bags
– One Bag per priority level
– To reduce synchronization
• Sequence is replicated among cores
• Bag is distributed between cores
– To reduce overhead of finding work
• A reduction tree over machine topology to get
estimate of current urgent priority
17
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
18
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
19
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
20
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
21
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
22
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
23
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
24
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Scheduling Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 1
25
Bag
c1 c2
Head
Package 2
Priority Map
Global Map
Scheduling
Bags
1 30
26
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
27
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
28
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
13
29
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
13
30
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
13
3
31
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
1
3
32
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
1
3
15
33
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
1
3
15
34
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
1
3
15
5
5
35
Priority Map
0 1
Global Map
Local Maps
Core 1 Core 2
Scheduling
Bags
1 3
1 30
1
3
1
5
5
36
Outline
1. Abstraction for graph analytics applications
and implementation in Galois system
2. One piece of infrastructure: priority
scheduling
3. Evaluation of Galois system versus graph
analytics DSLs
37
Graph Analytics DSLs
• Easy to implement their APIs on top of Galois
system
– Galois implementations called PowerGraph-g,
Ligra-g, etc.
– About 200-300 lines of code each
38
Ÿ GraphLab Low et al. (UAI ’10)
Ÿ PowerGraph Gonzalez et al. (OSDI ’12)
Ÿ GraphChi Kyrola et al. (OSDI ’12)
Ÿ Ligra Shun and Blelloch (PPoPP ’13)
Ÿ Pregel Malewicz et al. (SIGMOD ‘10)
Ÿ …
Evaluation
• Platform
– 40-core system
• 4 socket, Xeon E7-4860
(Westmere)
– 128 GB RAM
• Applications
– Breadth-first search (bfs)
– Connected components (cc)
– Approximate diameter (dia)
– PageRank (pr)
– Single-source shortest paths
(sssp)
• Inputs
– twitter50 (50 M nodes, 2 B
edges, low-diameter)
– road (20 M nodes, 60 M
edges, high-diameter)
• Comparison with
– Ligra (shared memory)
– PowerGraph (distributed)
• Runtimes with 64 16-core
machines (1024 cores) does not
beat one 40-core machine using
Galois
39
40
Ligra runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
Ligra runtime
Ligra⌫g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
Range
<= 1
> 1
41
Ligra runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
Ligra runtime
Ligra⌫g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
Range
<= 1
> 1
42
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
43
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
44
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
• The best algorithm may
require application-
specific scheduling
– Priority scheduling for
SSSP
• The best algorithm may
not be expressible as a
vertex program
– Connected components
with union-find
• Autonomous scheduling
required for high-
diameter graphs
– Coordinated scheduling
uses many rounds and
has too much overhead
45
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
• The best algorithm may
require application-
specific scheduling
– Priority scheduling for
SSSP
• The best algorithm may
not be expressible as a
vertex program
– Connected components
with union-find
• Autonomous scheduling
required for high-
diameter graphs
– Coordinated scheduling
uses many rounds and
has too much overhead
46
PowerGraph runtime
Galois runtime
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
10
100
1000
10000
bfs cc dia pr sssp
PowerGraph runtime
PowerGraph⇠g runtime
1
2
1
2
4
6
bfs cc dia pr sssp
• The best algorithm may
require application-
specific scheduling
– Priority scheduling for
SSSP
• The best algorithm may
not be expressible as a
vertex program
– Connected components
with union-find
• Autonomous scheduling
required for high-
diameter graphs
– Coordinated scheduling
uses many rounds and
has too much overhead
47
See Paper For
• More inputs, applications
• Detailed discussion of performance results
• More infrastructure: non-priority scheduling,
memory management
• Results for out-of-core DSLs
48
Summary
• Galois programming model is general
– Permits efficient algorithms to be written
• Galois infrastructure is lightweight
• Simpler graph DSLs can be layered on top
– Can perform better than existing systems
• Download at http://iss.ices.utexas.edu/galois
49

A Lightweight Infrastructure for Graph Analytics

  • 1.
    A Lightweight Infrastructurefor Graph Analytics Donald Nguyen Andrew Lenharth and Keshav Pingali The University of Texas at Austin
  • 2.
    What is GraphAnalytics? • Algorithms to compute properties of graphs – Connected components, shortest paths, centrality measures, diameter, PageRank, … • Many applications – Google, path routing, friend recommendations, network analysis • Difficult to implement on a large scale – Data sets are large, data accesses are irregular – Need parallelismand efficient runtimes Bridges of Konigsberg The Social Network
  • 3.
    Contributions • A lightweightinfrastructure for graph analytics based on improvements to the Galois system – Example: scalable priority scheduling • Orders of magnitude faster than third-party graph DSLs for many applications and inputs – Galois permits better algorithms to be written – Galois infrastructure more scalable 3
  • 4.
    Outline 1. Abstraction forgraph analytics applications and implementation in Galois system 2. One piece of infrastructure: priority scheduling 3. Evaluation of Galois system versus graph analytics DSLs 4
  • 5.
    Example: SSSP • Findthe shortest distance from source node to all other nodes in a graph – Label nodes with tentativedistance – Assume non-negativeedge weights • Algorithms – Chaotic relaxation O(2V) – Bellman-Ford O(VE) – Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V) • Uses priority queue – Δ-stepping • Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work • Δ=1, O(E log V) • Δ=∞, O(VE) • Different algorithms are different schedules for applying relaxations – SSSP needs priority scheduling for work efficiency 1 9 2 3 1∞ ∞ 0 1 9 4 3 1 3 Operator Edge relaxation ∞ 2 5
  • 6.
    Example: SSSP • Findthe shortest distance from source node to all other nodes in a graph – Label nodes with tentativedistance – Assume non-negativeedge weights • Algorithms – Chaotic relaxation O(2V) – Bellman-Ford O(VE) – Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V) • Uses priority queue – Δ-stepping • Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work • Δ=1, O(E log V) • Δ=∞, O(VE) • Different algorithms are different schedules for applying relaxations – SSSP needs priority scheduling for work efficiency 1 9 2 3 1∞ ∞ 0 Active edge 1 9 4 3 1 3 Operator Edge relaxation ∞ 2 6
  • 7.
    Example: SSSP • Findthe shortest distance from source node to all other nodes in a graph – Label nodes with tentativedistance – Assume non-negativeedge weights • Algorithms – Chaotic relaxation O(2V) – Bellman-Ford O(VE) – Dijkstra’s algorithm O(E log V) • Uses priority queue – Δ-stepping • Uses sequence of bags to prioritize work • Δ=1, O(E log V) • Δ=∞, O(VE) • Different algorithms are different schedules for applying relaxations – SSSP needs priority scheduling for work efficiency 1 9 2 3 1∞ ∞ 0 Active edge Neighborhood Activity 1 9 4 3 1 3 Operator Edge relaxation ∞ 2 7
  • 8.
    Parallel Program =Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure Algorithm 8
  • 9.
    Parallel Program =Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure • What is the operator? – Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs – Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by adding/removing nodes and edges • Where/When does it execute? – Autonomous scheduling: activities execute transactionally – Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds • Read values refer to previous rounds • Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with reduction, etc. Algorithm 9
  • 10.
    Parallel Program =Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure • What is the operator? – Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs – Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by adding/removing nodes and edges • Where/When does it execute? – Autonomous scheduling: activities execute transactionally – Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds • Read values refer to previous rounds • Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with reduction, etc. Algorithm 10
  • 11.
    Parallel Program =Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure • What is the operator? – Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs – Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by adding/removing nodes and edges • Where/When does it execute? – Autonomous scheduling: activities execute transactionally – Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds • Read values refer to previous rounds • Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with reduction, etc. Algorithm 11
  • 12.
    Parallel Program =Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure • What is the operator? – Ligra, PowerGraph:only vertex programs – Galois: Unrestricted, may even morph graph by adding/removing nodes and edges • Where/When does it execute? – Autonomous scheduling: activities execute transactionally – Coordinated scheduling: activities execute in rounds • Read values refer to previous rounds • Multiple updates to the same location are resolved with reduction, etc. Algorithm ba c 12
  • 13.
    Galois System Parallel Program= Operator + Schedule + Parallel Data Structure Operators Schedules Data StructureAPI Calls Schedulers Data Structures AllocatorThread Primitives Multicore User Program Galois System 13
  • 14.
    Outline 1. Abstraction forgraph analytics applications and implementation in Galois system 2. One piece of infrastructure: priority scheduling 3. Evaluation of Galois system versus DSLs 14
  • 15.
    Galois Infrastructure forScheduling • Library of different schedulers – FIFO, LIFO, Priority, … – DSL for specifying scheduling policies • Nguyen and Pingali (ASPLOS ’11) 15
  • 16.
    Priority Scheduling • Concurrentpriority queue – Implemented in TBB, java.concurrent – Does not scale: our tasks are very fine-grain • Sequence of bags – One bag per priority level – High overhead for finding non-empty, urgent- priority bags 16
  • 17.
    Ordered by Metric(OBIM) • Sparse sequence of Bags – One Bag per priority level – To reduce synchronization • Sequence is replicated among cores • Bag is distributed between cores – To reduce overhead of finding work • A reduction tree over machine topology to get estimate of current urgent priority 17
  • 18.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 18 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 19.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 19 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 20.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 20 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 21.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 21 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 22.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 22 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 23.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 23 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 24.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 24 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 25.
    Scheduling Bag c1 c2 Head Package1 25 Bag c1 c2 Head Package 2
  • 26.
  • 27.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 27
  • 28.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 28
  • 29.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 13 29
  • 30.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 13 30
  • 31.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 13 3 31
  • 32.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 1 3 32
  • 33.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 1 3 15 33
  • 34.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 1 3 15 34
  • 35.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 1 3 15 5 5 35
  • 36.
    Priority Map 0 1 GlobalMap Local Maps Core 1 Core 2 Scheduling Bags 1 3 1 30 1 3 1 5 5 36
  • 37.
    Outline 1. Abstraction forgraph analytics applications and implementation in Galois system 2. One piece of infrastructure: priority scheduling 3. Evaluation of Galois system versus graph analytics DSLs 37
  • 38.
    Graph Analytics DSLs •Easy to implement their APIs on top of Galois system – Galois implementations called PowerGraph-g, Ligra-g, etc. – About 200-300 lines of code each 38 Ÿ GraphLab Low et al. (UAI ’10) Ÿ PowerGraph Gonzalez et al. (OSDI ’12) Ÿ GraphChi Kyrola et al. (OSDI ’12) Ÿ Ligra Shun and Blelloch (PPoPP ’13) Ÿ Pregel Malewicz et al. (SIGMOD ‘10) Ÿ …
  • 39.
    Evaluation • Platform – 40-coresystem • 4 socket, Xeon E7-4860 (Westmere) – 128 GB RAM • Applications – Breadth-first search (bfs) – Connected components (cc) – Approximate diameter (dia) – PageRank (pr) – Single-source shortest paths (sssp) • Inputs – twitter50 (50 M nodes, 2 B edges, low-diameter) – road (20 M nodes, 60 M edges, high-diameter) • Comparison with – Ligra (shared memory) – PowerGraph (distributed) • Runtimes with 64 16-core machines (1024 cores) does not beat one 40-core machine using Galois 39
  • 40.
    40 Ligra runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp Ligra runtime Ligra⌫g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp Range <= 1 > 1
  • 41.
    41 Ligra runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp Ligra runtime Ligra⌫g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp Range <= 1 > 1
  • 42.
    42 PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp
  • 43.
    43 PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp
  • 44.
    PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp 44
  • 45.
    PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp • The best algorithm may require application- specific scheduling – Priority scheduling for SSSP • The best algorithm may not be expressible as a vertex program – Connected components with union-find • Autonomous scheduling required for high- diameter graphs – Coordinated scheduling uses many rounds and has too much overhead 45
  • 46.
    PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp • The best algorithm may require application- specific scheduling – Priority scheduling for SSSP • The best algorithm may not be expressible as a vertex program – Connected components with union-find • Autonomous scheduling required for high- diameter graphs – Coordinated scheduling uses many rounds and has too much overhead 46
  • 47.
    PowerGraph runtime Galois runtime 1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 bfscc dia pr sssp PowerGraph runtime PowerGraph⇠g runtime 1 2 1 2 4 6 bfs cc dia pr sssp • The best algorithm may require application- specific scheduling – Priority scheduling for SSSP • The best algorithm may not be expressible as a vertex program – Connected components with union-find • Autonomous scheduling required for high- diameter graphs – Coordinated scheduling uses many rounds and has too much overhead 47
  • 48.
    See Paper For •More inputs, applications • Detailed discussion of performance results • More infrastructure: non-priority scheduling, memory management • Results for out-of-core DSLs 48
  • 49.
    Summary • Galois programmingmodel is general – Permits efficient algorithms to be written • Galois infrastructure is lightweight • Simpler graph DSLs can be layered on top – Can perform better than existing systems • Download at http://iss.ices.utexas.edu/galois 49