Performance evaluation of a new parallel preconditioner

The linear systems associated with large, sparse, symmetric, positive definite matrices are often solved iteratively using the preconditioned conjugate gradient method. We have developed a new class of preconditioners, support tree preconditioners, that are based on the connectivity of the graphs corresponding to the matrices and are well-structured for parallel implementation. We evaluate the performance of support tree preconditioners by comparing them against two common types of preconditioners: diagonal scaling and incomplete Cholesky. Support tree preconditioners require less overall storage and less work per iteration than incomplete Cholesky preconditioners. In terms of total execution time, support tree preconditioners outperform both diagonal scaling and incomplete Cholesky preconditioners.<<ETX>>

[1]  Fernando L. Alvarado,et al.  Optimal Parallel Solution of Sparse Triangular Systems , 1993, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[2]  I. Duff,et al.  The effect of ordering on preconditioned conjugate gradients , 1989 .

[3]  Gary L. Miller,et al.  Automatic Mesh Partitioning , 1992 .

[4]  H. V. D. Vorst,et al.  High Performance Preconditioning , 1989 .

[5]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Matrix computations , 1983 .

[6]  Anne Greenbaum,et al.  Comparison of linear system solvers applied to diffusion-type finite element equations , 1989 .

[7]  Guy E. Blelloch,et al.  NESL: A Nested Data-Parallel Language , 1992 .

[8]  Yousef Saad,et al.  Solving Sparse Triangular Linear Systems on Parallel Computers , 1989, Int. J. High Speed Comput..

[9]  J. Meijerink,et al.  An iterative solution method for linear systems of which the coefficient matrix is a symmetric -matrix , 1977 .

[10]  Alex Pothen,et al.  PARTITIONING SPARSE MATRICES WITH EIGENVECTORS OF GRAPHS* , 1990 .

[11]  V. A. Barker,et al.  Finite element solution of boundary value problems , 1984 .

[12]  Peter G. Doyle,et al.  Random Walks and Electric Networks: REFERENCES , 1987 .

[13]  Horst D. Simon,et al.  Partitioning of unstructured problems for parallel processing , 1991 .

[14]  S. Eisenstat.  Efficient Implementation of a Class of Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient Methods , 1981 .

[15]  Henk A. van der Vorst,et al.  ICCG and related methods for 3D problems on vector computers , 1989 .

[16]  Gary L. Miller,et al.  List ranking and parallel tree contraction , 1993 .

[17]  Jack J. Dongarra,et al.  Solving linear systems on vector and shared memory computers , 1990 .

[18]  Gary L. Miller,et al.  Nested Dissection: A survey and comparison of various nested dissection algorithms , 1992 .

[19]  L. Dagum.  Automatic partitioning of unstructured grids into connected components , 1993, Supercomputing '93.

[20]  M. Heroux,et al.  A parallel preconditioned conjugate gradient package for solving sparse linear systems on a Cray Y-MP , 1991 .

[21]  Guy E. Blelloch,et al.  AD-A 270 601 Segmented Operations for Sparse Matrix Computation on Vector Multiprocessors , 1993 .

[22]  Bruce Hendrickson,et al.  An Improved Spectral Graph Partitioning Algorithm for Mapping Parallel Computations , 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[23]  Iain S. Duff,et al.  Stopping Criteria for Iterative Solvers , 1992, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl..

[24]  Gary L. Miller,et al.  Computer Science Performance Evaluation of a New Parallel Preconditioner , .

[25]  Xian-Zhong Guo.  Multilevel preconditioners: analysis, performance enhancements and parallel algorithms , 1992 .