Technology
Analysis Chart Examples:
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
core (count)
Note: Let's identify what we want to show here: It should be a TS/HTML animation on medium speed repeat.
Same serial algorithm. Three fundamentally different transformations (with CC + TALP extraction artifacts).
function f(inputs) {
if (mode) { … } else { … }
for i = 0..N-1:
for j = 0..M(i)-1:
y[i] = g(y[i], x[j])
}Non-loop branch: if (mode)
Variable-time loop: M(i) depends on input attributes
Dependency example: updates to y[i] may require coordination
Kernel + grid + explicit memory & sync
__global__ void k(...) {
tid = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x
+ threadIdx.x;
i = tid;
if (i < N) { … }
}Grid → Blocks → Threads → GPU
Tuning: occupancy, shared memory, coalescing
Kernel + NDRange + context/queue/buffers
kernel void k(...) {
gid = get_global_id(0);
i = gid;
if (i < N) { … }
}Host API → Queue → Device
NDRange → Work-groups → Work-items
Functional decomposition → TALPs → graph → discretized instances
Functional decomposition exposes all functions and their cyclomatic complexity so TALP extraction can prioritize the highest-branching hotspots.
Parallelization: discretize variable-time loops
Change loop start/end per TALP instance (slicing iteration space).
Technology
Use investor-safe language first, bridge the concept, then go deep for developers.
Time-Affecting Linear Pathways (TALPs) are execution paths within software that determine total runtime. Massively Parallel’s technology automatically identifies independent TALPs and executes them concurrently.
TALPs are not tasks or threads — they are the time-critical execution pathways already present in your software.
This is the key reframing: most systems talk about splitting work. TALPs focus on how time flows through the program, and where it can safely flow in parallel.
Conceptual time overlap
A TALP is a linear chain of dependent operations whose execution time contributes to overall latency. Independent TALPs can be scheduled concurrently while preserving program semantics.
Developer implications
Conceptual TALP form (illustrative)
TALP A: compute a[i] from x[i] TALP B: compute b[i] from y[i] JOIN(A, B) -> TALP C: fuse(a[i], b[i])
Want the full “code → TALPification” flow (analysis, pathway discovery, execution-aware optimization)?
Technology
Most parallel approaches require developers to restructure software around a parallel model—loops, kernels, or explicit tasks. That works for some workloads, but it breaks down across real applications: irregular control flow, evolving codebases, and end-to-end performance.
TALPs (Time-Affecting Linear Pathways) take a different approach: instead of asking you to define parallel work, we identify the time-critical execution pathways already present in your code and run independent pathways concurrently.
A practical comparison of what each model is good at—and why TALPs are designed to generalize across real codebases.
OpenMP / Pragmas
Common approach
Best for
Regular loops and clearly parallel regions.
Why it falls short
Requires developers to annotate code and reason about correctness, granularity, and data-sharing. It’s often loop-centric and struggles with irregular control flow and application-wide optimization.
TALP advantage
TALPs are discovered automatically across functions and control flow. Concurrency emerges from pathway independence—not manual directives—so you parallelize more than loops and reduce maintenance risk.
GPU Offload (CUDA / OpenCL)
Common approach
Best for
Highly data-parallel kernels with predictable memory access.
Why it falls short
Demands algorithm refactoring and a separate programming model. Performance depends heavily on memory movement and kernel structure, and many real-world codes don’t map cleanly without significant rewrite.
TALP advantage
TALPs focus on time-critical pathways in the existing program and enable concurrent execution on CPUs today. You get scalable parallelism without re-architecting code around accelerators.
Task Frameworks (TBB / Cilk / OpenMP Tasks)
Common approach
Best for
Applications already structured as tasks or pipelines.
Why it falls short
You still have to design the task decomposition and dependency structure. Too-coarse tasks waste cores; too-fine tasks add overhead. The model is explicit and can be brittle as code evolves.
TALP advantage
TALPs make the dependency/merge points implicit in the program’s time structure. The system extracts concurrency and can tune pathway granularity without forcing developers to rewrite software as a task graph.
Manual Threads (pthreads / std::thread)
Common approach
Best for
Low-level control in expert hands.
Why it falls short
Hard to get right, expensive to maintain, and easy to regress. Locking, races, false sharing, and portability issues consume engineering time and limit scaling.
TALP advantage
TALPs replace manual concurrency management with automatic pathway discovery and scheduling. You preserve program semantics while letting the system exploit concurrency safely and repeatedly as the code changes.
Tasks and threads describe work you create. TALPs describe time that already exists.
That’s why TALPs can generalize beyond “easy” parallelism and unlock concurrency across real applications without forcing a new programming model.
TECHNOLOGY
A canonical walkthrough: import code safely, decompose into real execution pathways, generate predictive analytics, then transparently parallelize and execute toward explicit goals.
Anchor every prediction and optimization to the real machine.
WHAT HAPPENS
User signs in to the TALP system UI
Hardware + core configuration is explicit (not abstract)
Safety + auditability: work happens on a cloned artifact.
WHAT HAPPENS
Select repo item + dataset + output artifact name
Original source is not mutated
Turn “code” into selectable execution pathways + real measurements.
WHAT HAPPENS
Functional decomposition + call structure
Runs: serial, standard parallel, persistent parallel
Dataset variables + ranges are characterized
Predict behavior before spending compute.
WHAT HAPPENS
Predict time + space for specific input ranges
Extend to energy/cost/carbon accounting
Nothing is hidden—every change is inspectable.
WHAT HAPPENS
Side-by-side original vs TALP-augmented source
Visual highlight of changed vs unchanged logic
Structure drives parallelism; complexity surfaces hotspots.
WHAT HAPPENS
Function tree + cyclomatic complexity annotations
Guides where parallel structure is most valuable
Programs don’t run “the code”—they run one pathway.
WHAT HAPPENS
Select a TALP (pathway) explicitly
See exact blocks, order, and variables on that path
Ranges → cases → correctness + scaling behavior checks.
WHAT HAPPENS
Track pathway-driving input attributes
Auto-generate tests across valid ranges
Optimize toward performance or energy.
WHAT HAPPENS
User selects goal + constraints (e.g., max cores)
System chooses core count (not always “max”)
Run + report deltas (time/energy/cost)
KEY IDEA
TALPs make execution pathways explicit, generate predictive analytics from real runs, and use those predictions to choose parallel strategies and resource levels aligned to performance or sustainability goals.
TECHNOLOGY
MPT transforms existing code into predictable, parallel execution through a time-centric pipeline: structural analysis, live predictive analytics, TALP-based transformation, and cost-aware optimization.
Turn a codebase into a complete, navigable structure of functions and relationships.
Extracts every function and call relationship across the project.
Highlights hotspots instantly with cyclomatic complexity per function.
Surfaces dependency variables and control structure to guide optimization.
Creates the structural model used by the rest of the pipeline.
WHAT YOU GET
A full function tree + maintainability signals (complexity) + dependency context—without manual tracing.
This section describes the end-to-end pipeline (analysis → prediction → transformation). A separate section should define TALPs and explain why time-centric pathways matter.