Energy and Environment Division
The Information and Computing Services Division was kind enough to make 10 Sun SPARC-10's available on the network for enterprising individuals who wished to perform experiments in distributed parallel processing. This article describes the method we developed to efficiently run an incompletely parallelizable rendering program in a distributed processing environment.
The lighting simulation and rendering software we have developed over the past 8 years, Radiance, has only recently been made to work in parallel environments. Although parallel ray tracing programs have been kicking around the graphics community for several years, Radiance uses a modified ray tracing algorithm that does not adapt as readily to a parallel implementation. The main difference is that Radiance produces illumination information that is globally reused during the rendering of an image. Thus, spawning disjoint processes to work on disjoint parts of an image will not result in the linear speedup desired. Each independent process would create its own set of "indirect irradiance" values for its section of the image, and many of these values would be redundant and would represent wasted CPU time. It is therefore essential that this information be shared among different processes working on the same scene. The question is, how to do it?
To minimize incompatibilities with different UNIX implementations, we decided early on in our parallel rendering work to rely on the Network File System (NFS) only, imperfect as it is. The chief feature that enables us to do parallel rendering is NFS file locking, which is supported by most current UNIX implementations. File locking allows a process on the same machine or a different machine to restrict access on any section of an open file that resides either locally or on an NFS-mounted filesystem. Thus, data-sharing is handled through the contents of an ordinary file and coordinated by the network lock manager. This method can be slow in states of high contention, therefore access frequency must be kept low.
In this article, we will refer to processes rather than machines because the methods presented work both in cases of multiple processors on a single machine and multiple machines distributed over a network.
The method we adopted for sharing our indirect irradiance values is simple. Each process caches together a small number of values (on the order of 16 -- enough to fill a standard UNIX buffer) before appending these to a file. In preparation for writing out its buffer, the process places an exclusive lock on the file, then checks to see if it has grown since the last time. If it has, the process reads in the new information, assuming it has come from another process that is legitimately working on this file. Finally, the process flushes its buffer and releases the lock on the file. The file thus contains the cumulative indirect irradiance calculations of all the processes, and every process has this information stored also in memory (up until the last time it flushed its buffer). Saving the information to a file has the further advantage of providing a convenient way to reuse the data for later renderings.
The image to be rendered is divided into many small pieces, more pieces than there are processors. This way, if one piece takes longer than the others, the processors that had easy pieces are not all waiting for the processor with the difficult piece to finish. Coordination between processes is again handled by the network lock manager. A file contains the position of the last piece being worked on, and as soon as a processor finishes its piece, it locks the file, finds out what to work on next, increments the position and unlocks the file again. Thus, there is no need for a single controlling process, and rendering processes may be initiated and terminated at will.
ICSD's offer to use their farm of SPARC-10's was an ideal opportunity to test our programs under real conditions. The problem at hand was producing numerically accurate, highresolution renderings of the lower deck of a ship under different lighting conditions. Three images were rendered one at a time, with all 10 SPARC-10 machines working on each image simultaneously. The wall time required to render one image was about 4.3 hours. The first machine finished with all it could do shortly after the last image piece was assigned at 2.8 hours. Thus, many of the processors in our test run were done before the entire image was complete. This is a problem of not breaking the image into small enough pieces for efficient processor allocation.
For the time that the processors were running, all but one had 98% or 99% CPU utilization. The one exception was the file server, which had 94% CPU utilization. This means that the processors were well saturated while working on our job, not waiting for image piece assignments, disk access, etc.
If we include the time at the end when some processors had finished while others were still going, the effective CPU utilization averaged 84%, with the lowest at 75%. Again, this low figure was due to the fact that the picture should have been divided into more than the 49 pieces we specified. (The overall utilization was really better than this, since we set the jobs up to run one after the other and once a processor finished its part on one image it went on to work on the next image.)
The real proof of a parallel implementation is not CPU utilization, however, it is the speedup factor. To examine this, it was necessary to start the job over, running on a single processor. Running alone, one SPARC-10 took about 35 hours to finish an image, with 99% CPU utilization. That is about 8.2 times as long as the total time required by 10 processors to finish the image (due mostly to idle processors at the end). This ratio, 8.2/10, is very close to the average effective CPU utilization value of 84%, indicating that parallel processing does not result in a lot of redundant calculation.
Our experience showed that an incompletely parallelizable problem could be solved efficiently on distributed processors using NFS as a data sharing mechanism. The principle lesson we learned from this exercise is that good utilization of multiple processors requires that the job be broken into small enough chunks. It is perhaps significant that the time spent idle, 16%, corresponds roughly to the percentage of the total time required by a processor to finish one piece (since there were about 5 chunks for each processor). If we were to decrease the size of the pieces so that each processor got 20 pieces on average, we should expect the idle time to go down to around 5%.