A profile-based tool for finding pipeline parallelism in sequential programs

Traditional static analysis fails to auto-parallelize programs with a complex control and data flow. Furthermore, thread-level parallelism in such programs is often restricted to pipeline parallelism, which can be hard to discover by a programmer. In this paper we propose a tool that, based on profiling information, helps the programmer to discover parallelism. The programmer hand-picks the code transformations from among the proposed candidates which are then applied by automatic code transformation techniques.

This paper contributes to the literature by presenting a profiling tool for discovering thread-level parallelism. We track dependencies at the whole-data structure level rather than at the element level or byte level in order to limit the profiling overhead. We perform a thorough analysis of the needs and costs of this technique. Furthermore, we present and validate the belief that programs with complex control and data flow contain significant amounts of exploitable coarse-grain pipeline parallelism in the program’s outer loops. This observation validates our approach to whole-data structure dependencies. As state-of-the-art compilers focus on loops iterating over data structure members, this observation also explains why our approach finds coarse-grain pipeline parallelism in cases that have remained out of reach for state-of-the-art compilers. In cases where traditional compilation techniques do find parallelism, our approach allows to discover higher degrees of parallelism, allowing a 40% speedup over traditional compilation techniques. Moreover, we demonstrate real speedups on multiple hardware platforms.

The use and limitation of realistic evaluation as a tool for evidence-based practice: a critical realist perspective

In this paper, we assess realistic evaluation’s articulation with evidence-based practice (EBP) from the perspective of critical realism. We argue that the adoption by realistic evaluation of a realist causal ontology means that it is better placed to explain complex healthcare interventions than the traditional method used by EBP, the randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, we do not conclude from this that the use of RCTs is without merit, arguing that it is possible to use both methods in combination under the rubric of realist theory. More negatively, we contend that the rejection of critical theory and utopianism by realistic evaluation in favour of the pragmatism of piecemeal social engineering means that it is vulnerable to accusations that it promotes technocratic interpretations of human problems. We conclude that, insofar as realistic evaluation adheres to the ontology of critical realism, it provides a sound contribution to EBP, but insofar as it rejects the critical turn of Bhaskar’s realism, it replicates the technocratic tendencies inherent in EBP.