Author(s): Asanovic, K; Bodik, R; Catanzaro, B; Gebis, J; Husbands, P; Keutzer, K; Patterson, D; Plishker, W; Shalf, J; Williams, SW | Abstract: The recent switch to parallel microprocessors is a milestone in the history of computing. Industry has laid out a roadmap for multicore designs that preserves the programming paradigm of the past via binary compatibility and cache coherence. Conventional wisdom is now to double the number of cores on a chip with each silicon generation. A multidisciplinary group of Berkeley researchers met nearly two years to discuss this change. Our view is that this evolutionary approach to parallel hardware and software may work from 2 or 8 processor systems, but is likely to face diminishing returns as 16 and 32 processor systems are realized, just as returns fell with greater instruction-level parallelism. We believe that much can be learned by examining the success of parallelism at the extremes of the computing spectrum, namely embedded computing and high performance computing. This led us to frame the parallel landscape with seven questions, and to recommend the following: • The overarching goal should be to make it easy to write programs that execute efficiently on highly parallel computing systems • The target should be 1000s of cores per chip, as these chips are built from processing elements that are the most efficient in MIPS (Million Instructions per Second) per watt, MIPS per area of silicon, and MIPS per development dollar. • Instead of traditional benchmarks, use 13 “Dwarfs” to design and evaluate parallel programming models and architectures. (A dwarf is an algorithmic method that captures a pattern of computation and communication.) • “Autotuners” should play a larger role than conventional compilers in translating parallel programs. • To maximize programmer productivity, future programming models must be more human-centric than the conventional focus on hardware or applications. • To be successful, programming models should be independent of the number of processors. • To maximize application efficiency, programming models should support a wide range of data types and successful models of parallelism: task-level parallelism, word-level parallelism, and bit-level parallelism. 1 The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View From Berkeley • Architects should not include features that significantly affect performance or energy if programmers cannot accurately measure their impact via performance counters and energy counters. • Traditional operating systems will be deconstructed and operating system functionality will be orchestrated using libraries and virtual machines. • To explore the design space rapidly, use system emulators based on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that are highly scalable and low cost. Since real world applications are naturally parallel and hardware is naturally parallel, what we need is a programming model, system software, and a supporting architecture that are naturally parallel. Researchers have the rare opportunity to re-invent these cornerstones of computing, provided they simplify the efficient programming of highly parallel systems.

/pdf/the-landscape-of-parallel-computing-research-a-view-from-1i5pswggnf.pdf

The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

This report documents the results of a study to address the long range, strategic planning required by NASA's Revolutionary Computational Aerosciences (RCA) program in the area of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), including future software and hardware requirements for High Performance Computing (HPC). Specifically, the "Vision 2030" CFD study is to provide a knowledge-based forecast of the future computational capabilities required for turbulent, transitional, and reacting flow simulations across a broad Mach number regime, and to lay the foundation for the development of a future framework and/or environment where physics-based, accurate predictions of complex turbulent flows, including flow separation, can be accomplished routinely and efficiently in cooperation with other physics-based simulations to enable multi-physics analysis and design. Specific technical requirements from the aerospace industrial and scientific communities were obtained to determine critical capability gaps, anticipated technical challenges, and impediments to achieving the target CFD capability in 2030. A preliminary development plan and roadmap were created to help focus investments in technology development to help achieve the CFD vision in 2030.

/pdf/cfd-vision-2030-study-a-path-to-revolutionary-computational-3hk79p0tz6.pdf

CFD Vision 2030 Study: A Path to Revolutionary Computational Aerosciences

This report describes an early version of a technique for decomposing surface electromyographic (sEMG) signals into the constituent motor unit (MU) action potential trains. A surface sensor array is used to collect four channels of differentially amplified EMG signals. The decomposition is achieved by a set of algorithms that uses a specially developed knowledge-based Artificial Intelligence framework. In the automatic mode the accuracy ranges from 75 to 91%. An Interactive Editor is used to increase the accuracy to >97% in signal epochs of about 30-s duration. The accuracy was verified by comparing the firings of action potentials from the EMG signals detected simultaneously by the surface sensor array and by a needle sensor. We have decomposed up to six MU action potential trains from the sEMG signal detected from the orbicularis oculi, platysma, and tibialis anterior muscles. However, the yield is generally low, with typically ≤5 MUs per contraction. Both the accuracy and the yield should increase as the algorithms are developed further. With this technique it is possible to investigate the behavior of MUs in muscles that are not easily studied by needle sensors. We found that the inverse relationship between the recruitment threshold and the firing rate previously reported for muscles innervated by spinal nerves is also present in the orbicularis oculi and the platysma, which are innervated by cranial nerves. However, these two muscles were found to have greater and more widespread values of firing rates than those of large limb muscles.

Decomposition of Surface EMG Signals

Replications play a key role in Empirical Software Engineering by allowing the community to build knowledge about which results or observations hold under which conditions. Therefore, not only can a replication that produces similar results as the original experiment be viewed as successful, but a replication that produce results different from those of the original experiment can also be viewed as successful. In this paper we identify two types of replications: exact replications, in which the procedures of an experiment are followed as closely as possible; and conceptual replications, in which the same research question is evaluated by using a different experimental procedure. The focus of this paper is on exact replications. We further explore them to identify two sub-categories: dependent replications, where researchers attempt to keep all the conditions of the experiment the same or very similar and independent replications, where researchers deliberately vary one or more major aspects of the conditions of the experiment. We then discuss the role played by each type of replication in terms of its goals, benefits, and limitations. Finally, we highlight the importance of producing adequate documentation for an experiment (original or replication) to allow for replication. A properly documented replication provides the details necessary to gain a sufficient understanding of the study being replicated without requiring the replicator to slavishly follow the given procedures.

/pdf/the-role-of-replications-in-empirical-software-engineering-rksg33leje.pdf

The role of replications in Empirical Software Engineering

Modern software-based services are implemented as distributed systems with complex behavior and failure modes Many large tech organizations are using experimentation to verify such systems' reliability Netflix engineers call this approach chaos engineering They've determined several principles underlying it and have used it to run experiments This article is part of a theme issue on DevOps

Chaos Engineering

Computational scientists developing software for HPC systems face unique software engineering issues. Attempts to transfer SE technologies to this domain must take these issues into account.

/pdf/understanding-the-high-performance-computing-community-a-268ea0wv1j.pdf

Understanding the High-Performance-Computing Community: A Software Engineer's Perspective

Current cloud computing infrastructure typically assumes a homogeneous collection of commodity hardware, with details about hardware variation intentionally hidden from users. In this paper, we present our approach for extending the traditional notions of cloud computing to provide a cloud-based access model to clusters that contain a heterogeneous architectures and accelerators. We describe our ongoing work extending the Open Stack cloud computing stack to support heterogeneous architectures and accelerators, and our experiences running Open Stack on our local heterogeneous cluster test bed.

/pdf/heterogeneous-cloud-computing-59xkxuzarm.pdf

Heterogeneous Cloud Computing

In developing High-Performance Computing (HPC) software, time to solution is an important metric. This metric is comprised of two main components: the human effort required developing the software, plus the amount of machine time required to execute it. To date, little empirical work has been done to study the first component: the human effort required and the effects of approaches and practices that may be used to reduce it. In this paper, we describe a series of studies that address this problem. We instrumented the development process used in multiple HPC classroom environments. We analyzed data within and across such studies, varying factors such as the parallel programming model used and the application being developed, to understand their impact on the development process.

/pdf/parallel-programmer-productivity-a-case-study-of-novice-51f0o4mh9o.pdf

Parallel Programmer Productivity: A Case Study of Novice Parallel Programmers

As software systems evolve over time, they invariably undergo changes that can lead to a degeneration of the architecture. Left unchecked, degeneration may reach a level where a complete redesign is necessary, a task that requires significant effort. In this paper, we present a survey of technologies developed by researchers that can be used to combat degeneration, that is, technologies that can be employed in identifying, treating and researching degeneration. We also discuss the various causes of degeneration and how it can be prevented.

Lorin Hochstein

Papers

Chaos Engineering

Understanding the High-Performance-Computing Community: A Software Engineer's Perspective

Heterogeneous Cloud Computing

Parallel Programmer Productivity: A Case Study of Novice Parallel Programmers

Combating architectural degeneration: a survey