Limits for Computational Electromagnetics Codes Imposed by Computer Architecture

Authors

  • J ̈urgen v. Hagen Institut f ̈ur H ̈ochstfrequenztechnik und Elektronik Universit ̈at Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12, D - 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany,
  • Werner Wiesbeck Institut f ̈ur H ̈ochstfrequenztechnik und Elektronik Universit ̈at Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12, D - 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany,

Keywords:

Limits for Computational Electromagnetics Codes Imposed by Computer Architecture

Abstract

The algorithmic complexity of the innermost loops that determine the complexity of algorithms in computational electromagnetics (CEM) codes are analyzed according to their operation count and the impact of an underlying computer hardware. As memory chips are much slower than arithmetic processors, codes that involve a high data movement compared to the number of arithmetic operations are executed comparatively slower. Hence, matrix-matrix multiplications are much faster than matrix-vector multiplications. It is seen that it is not su•cient to compare only the complexity, but also the actual performance of algorithms to judge on faster execution. Implications involve FDTD loops, LU factorizations and iterative solvers for dense matrices. Run times on two reference platforms, namely an Athlon 900 MHz and an HP PA 8600 processor, verify the •ndings

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

G. H. Golub and C. F. van Loan, Matrix Computations. Balti-

more and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Y. Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Boston:

PWS Publishing Company, 1996.

R. C. Whaley, A. Petitet, and J. J. Dongarra, “Automated em-

pirical optimization of software and the atlas project,” To ap-

pear in Parallel Computing, 2001. Also avalable as University

of Tennessee LAPACK Working Note #147, UT-CS-00-448,

(www.netlib.org/lapack/lawns/lawn147.ps).

J. J. Dongarra, J. du Croz, S. Hammarling, and R. J. Hanson,

“An extended set of fortran basic linear algebra subprograms,”

ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, vol. 14, pp. 1–

, Mar. 1988.

J. J. Dongarra, J. du Croz, S. Hammarling, and I. Duff, “A set

of level 3 basic linear algebra subprograms,” ACM Transac-

tions on Mathematical Software, vol. 16, pp. 1–17, Mar. 1990.

B. K ̊agstr ̈om, P. Ling, and C. van Loan, “GEMM-based level

BLAS: Portability and optimization issues,” ACM Transac-

tions on Mathematical Software, vol. 24, pp. 303–316, Sept.

B. K ̊agstr ̈om, P. Ling, and C. van Loan, “Algorithm 784:

GEMM-based level 3 BLAS: High-performance model imple-

mentations and performance evaluation benchmark,” ACM

Transactions on Mathematical Software, vol. 24, pp. 268–302,

Sept. 1998.

J. W. Demmel, N. J. Higham, and R. S. Schreiber, “Stability

of block lu factorizations,” Num. lin. Alg. with Appl., vol. 2,

no. 2, pp. 173–190, 1995

Downloads

Published

2022-07-09

How to Cite

[1]
Hagen J. ̈. v. . and W. . Wiesbeck, “Limits for Computational Electromagnetics Codes Imposed by Computer Architecture”, ACES Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 166–169, Jul. 2022.

Issue

Section

General Submission