Tradeoffs between parallelism and fill in nested dissection

In this paper we demonstrate that parallelism and fill can be traded off in orders for Gaussian elimination. While the well-known nested dissection algorithm produces very parallel elimination orders, we show that by reducing the parallelism it is possible to reduce the fill that the orders generate. In particular, we present a new “less parallel nested dissection” algorithm (LPND). We prove that, unlike standard nested dissection, when applied to a chordal graph LPND finds a zero-fill elimination order. Our implementation of LPND generates less fill than state-of-the-art implementations of the nested dissection (METIS), minimum-degree @MD), and hybrid (BEND) algorithms on a large body of test matrices, at the cost of a small reduction in the paralellism in the orders that it produces. We have also implemented a nested dissection algorithm that is different from METIS and that uses the same separator algorithm used by our implementation of LPND. This algorithm, like LPND, generates less fill than METIS, and on large graphs generates significantly less fill than AMD. The latter comparison is notable, because although it is known that, for certain classes of graphs, minimum-degree produces asymptotically more fill than nested dissection, minimumdegree is believed to produce low-fill orderings in practice. Our experiments contradict this belief. ‘Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, (claudson@acd.ufrj.br). Claudson was supported in part by NSF Grant CCR-9505472. *School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, and Akamai Technologies, Inc. Bruce Maggs is supported in part by the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and DARPA under Contracts F19628-93-CO193 and F19628-96-G0061,by DARPA Contract NOOO14-95-1-1246, and by an NSF National Young Investigator Award, No. CCR-94-57766, with matching funds providedby NEC Research Institute and Sun Microsystems. 3Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, (gImiIler@cs.cmu.edu). Gary Miller issupportedin part by NSF Grants CCR-9505472 and CCR-9706572. Permission to make digital or hard copies ofall or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists. requires prior spccitic permission and/or a fee. SPAA ‘99 Saint Malo, France Copyright ACM 1999 l-581 13-124-O/99/06.,.$5.00

[1]  Joseph W. H. Liu,et al.  Modification of the minimum-degree algorithm by multiple elimination , 1985, TOMS.

[2]  Joseph W. H. Liu,et al.  Robust Ordering of Sparse Matrices using Multisection , 1998 .

[3]  R. Tarjan,et al.  The analysis of a nested dissection algorithm , 1987 .

[4]  F. Manne An Algorithm for Computing an Elimination Tree of Minimum Height for a Tree , 1991 .

[5]  A. George,et al.  Graph theory and sparse matrix computation , 1993 .

[6]  F. Leighton,et al.  Introduction to Parallel Algorithms and Architectures: Arrays, Trees, Hypercubes , 1991 .

[7]  A. George Nested Dissection of a Regular Finite Element Mesh , 1973 .

[8]  A. George An automatic one-way dissection algorithm for irregular finite element problems , 1978 .

[9]  Kevin Barraclough,et al.  I and i , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  D. Rose Triangulated graphs and the elimination process , 1970 .

[11]  P. Berman,et al.  On the performance of the minimum degree ordering for Gaussian elimination , 1990 .

[12]  S. Eisenstat,et al.  Node Selection Strategies for Bottom-Up Sparse Matrix Ordering , 1998, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl..

[13]  H. Markowitz The Elimination form of the Inverse and its Application to Linear Programming , 1957 .

[14]  Bruce Hendrickson,et al.  The Chaco user`s guide. Version 1.0 , 1993 .

[15]  R. Ravi,et al.  Parallelizing elimination orders with linear fill , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[16]  J. W. Walker,et al.  Direct solutions of sparse network equations by optimally ordered triangular factorization , 1967 .

[17]  Bengt Aspvall,et al.  Finding minimum height elimination trees for interval graphs in polynomial time , 1994 .

[18]  Eorge,et al.  Unstructured Graph Partitioning and Sparse Matrix Ordering System Version 2 . 0 , 1995 .

[19]  Bruce Hendrickson,et al.  A Multi-Level Algorithm For Partitioning Graphs , 1995, Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM SC95 Conference.

[20]  R. Ravi,et al.  Parallel Gaussian Elimination with Linear Work and Fill , 1997 .

[21]  D. Rose,et al.  Generalized nested dissection , 1977 .

[22]  Bruce Hendrickson,et al.  Improving the Run Time and Quality of Nested Dissection Ordering , 1998, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[23]  S. Parter The Use of Linear Graphs in Gauss Elimination , 1961 .

[24]  Bruce Hendrickson,et al.  Effective Sparse Matrix Ordering: Just Around the BEND , 1997, PPSC.

[25]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Cutting down on Fill Using Nested Dissection: Provably Good Elimination Orderings , 1993 .

[26]  Bengt Aspvall Minimizing Elimination Tree Height Can Increase Fill More Than Linearly , 1995, Inf. Process. Lett..

[27]  Patrick R. Amestoy,et al.  An Approximate Minimum Degree Ordering Algorithm , 1996, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl..