Message Passing Arbitrary Object Graphs?

I'm looking to parallelize some code across a Beowulf cluster, such that the CPUs involved don't share address space. I want to parallelize a function call in the outer loop. The function calls do not have any "开发者_Go百科important" side effects (though they do use a random number generator, allocate memory, etc.).

I've looked at libs like MPI and the problem I see is that they seem to make it very non-trivial to pass complex object graphs between nodes. The input to my function is a this pointer that points to a very complex object graph. The return type of my function is another complex object graph.

At a language-agnostic level (I'm working in the D programming language, and I'm almost sure no canned solution is available here, but I'm willing to create one), is there a "typical" way that passing complex state across nodes is dealt with? Ideally, I want the details of how the state is copied to be completely abstracted away and for the calls to look almost like normal function calls. I don't care that copying this much state over a network isn't particularly efficient, as the level of parallelism in question is so coarse-grained that it probably won't matter.

Edit: If there is no easy way to pass complex state, then how is message passing typically used? It seems to me like anything involving copying data over a network requires coarse grained parallelism, yet coarse grained parallelism usually requires passing complex state so that a lot of work can be done in one work unit.

I do a fair bit of MPI programming but I don't know of any typical way of passing complex state (as you describe it) between processes. Here's how I've been thinking about your problem, it probably matches your own thinking ...

I surmise that your complex object graphs are represented, in memory, by blocks of data and pointers to other blocks of data -- a usual sort of implementation of a graph. How best can you move one of these COGs (to coin an abbreviation) from the address space of one process to the address space of another ? To the extent that a pointer is a memory address, a pointer in one address space is no use in another address space, so you will have to translate it into some neutral form for transport (I think ?).

To send a COG, therefore, it has to be put into some form from which the receiving process can build, in its own address space, a local version of the graph with the pointers pointing to local memory addresses. Do you ever write these COGs to file ? If so, you already have a form in which one could be transported. I hate to suggest it, but you could even use files to communicate between processes -- and that might be easier to handle than the combination of D and MPI. Your choice !

If you don't have a file form for the COGs can you easily represent them as adjacency matrices or lists ? In other words, work out your own representation for transport ?

I'll be very surprised (but pleased to learn) if you can pass a COG between processes without transforming it from pointer-based to some more static structure such as arrays or records.

Edit, in response to OP's edit. MPI does provide easy ways to pass complex state around, provided that the complex state is represented as values not pointers. You can pass complex state around in either the intrinsic or customised MPI datatypes; as one of the other answers shows you these are flexible and capable. If our program does not keep the complex state in a form that MPI custom datatypes can handle, you'll have to write functions to pack/unpack to a message-friendly representation. If you can do that, then your message calls will look (for most purposes) like function calls.

As to the issues surrounding complex state and the graininess of parallelism, I'm not sure I quite follow you. We (include yourself in this sweeping generalisation if you want, or not) typically resort to MPI programming because we can't get enough performance out of a single processor, we know that we'll pay a penalty in terms of computation delayed by waiting for communication, we work hard to minimise that penalty, but in the end we accept the penalty as the cost of parallelisation. Certainly some jobs are too small or too short to benefit from parallelisation, but a lot of what we (parallel computationalists that is) do is just too big and too long-running to avoid parallelisation

You can do marvelous things with custom MPI datatypes. I'm currently working on a project where several MPI processes are tracking particles in a piece of virtual space, and when particles cross over from one process' territory into another one's, their data (position/speed/size/etc) has to be sent over the network.

The way I achieved this is the following:

1) All processes share an MPI Struct datatype for a single particle that contains all its relevant attributes, and their displacement in memory compared to the base address of the particle object.

2) On sending, the process iterates over whatever data structure it stores the particles in, notes down the memory address of each one that needs to be sent, and then builds a Hindexed datatype where each block is 1 long (of the above mentioned particle datatype) and starts at the memory addresses previously noted down. Sending 1 object of the resulting type will send all the necessary data over the network, in a type safe manner.

3) On the receiving end, things are slightly trickier. The receiving process first inserts "blank" particles into its own data structure: "blank" means that all the attributes that will be received from the other process are initialized to some default value. The memory addresses of the freshly inserted particles are noted down, and a datatype similar to that of the sender is created from these addresses. Receiving the sender's message as a single object of this type will automatically unpack all the data into all the right places, again, in a type safe manner.

This example is simpler in the sense that there are no relationships between particles (as there would be between nodes of a graph), but you could transmit that data in a similar way.

If the above description is not clear, I can post the C++ code that implements it.

I'm not sure I understand the question correctly so forgive me if my answer is off. From what I understand you want to send non-POD datatypes using MPI.

A library that can do this is Boost.MPI. It uses a serialization library to send even very complex data structures. There is a catch though: you will have to provide code to serialize the data yourself if you use complicated structures that Boost.Serialize does not already know about.

I believe message passing is typically used to transmit POD datatypes.

I'm not allowed to post more links so here is what I wanted to include:

Explanation of POD: www.fnal.gov/docs/working-groups/fpcltf/Pkg/ISOcxx/doc/POD.html

Serialization Library: www.boost.org/libs/serialization/doc

it depends on organization of your data. If you use pointers or automatic memory inside your objects, it will be difficult. If you can organize your objects to be contiguous in memory, you have two choices: send memory as bytes,cast it back to object type on the receiver or define mpi derived type for your object. If however you use inheritance, things will become complicated due to how objects are laid out in memory.

I do not know your problem, but maybe can take a look at ARMCI if you manage memory manually.