UC Berkeley

The memory consistency model in shared memory parallel programming controls the order in which memory operations performed by one thread may be observed by another. The most natural model for programmers is to have memory accesses appear to take effect in the order specified in the original program. Language designers have been reluctant to use this strong semantics, called sequential consistency, due to concerns over the performance of memory fence instructions and related mechanisms that guarantee order. In this paper, we provide evidence for the practicality of sequential consistency by showing that advanced compiler analysis techniques are sufficient to eliminate the need for most memory fences and enable high-level optimizations. Our analyses eliminated over 97% of the memory fences that were needed by a naïve implementation, accounting for 87 to 100% of the dynamically encountered fences in all but one benchmark. The impact of the memory model and analysis on runtime performance depends on the quality of the optimizations: more aggressive optimizations are likely to be invalidated by a strong memory consistency semantics. We consider two specific optimizations-pipelining of bulk memory copies and communication aggregation and scheduling for irregular accesses-and show that our most aggressive analysis is able to obtain the same performance as the relaxed model when applied to two linear algebra kernels. While additional work on parallel optimizations and analyses is needed, we believe these results provide important evidence on the viability of using a simple memory consistency model without sacrificing performance.