The biggest effects are varying page sizes as bits move through silicon and latencies to memory access, which reflects cache hierarchies but also NUMA, DIMMs, and other considerations with respect to how memory is connected to the system and the topology of how memory moves into the local CPU cache. Due to the physical size of supercomputers, the latency variance for "flat" cache coherent memory access can become so bad that it has pathological characteristics on algorithms that work adequately with lower latencies. With how fast and efficient CPUs are today, on single system boards this has a huge effect. For example, it is not uncommon to lock a core to physical memory that is directly attached to that CPU's memory channels instead of some other CPU's memory channels in databases.
Some performance-sensitive open source libraries do varying amounts of memory topology aware optimization. The rudimentary tricks can often be worth a 2x performance boost for in-memory processing.
In the same way that really clever schedulers and disk I/O systems (they don't let the OS do it) in good databases try to optimize the average access time and variance, high-performance in-memory systems use very similar techniques to optimize the average access time to any particular piece of memory. The techniques are very similar in the abstract but there is a lot less written about the nuances of in-memory scheduling; it often involves understanding lower level details of the silicon than programmers are used to studying. The net effect is a large reduction in busy stalls and contention.
Also, people tend to forget that even though lock-free algorithms are fast on average, they tend to have a lot of overhead in systems with many cores unless they are used sparingly and accessed relatively infrequently. Eliminating that waste can have large performance benefits.
To your question: In order to minimize the need for thread coordination and optimize memory scheduling, the first thing you need to do is design algorithms and data structures that approximately match the topology of your storage, whether memory or disk or both. And that rarely looks like idealized random access memory. Then you optimize for locality of execution. I've designed database kernels that had thousands of parallel threads running. It turns out that the techniques used to eliminate almost all coordination in that case produce extremely efficient database kernels on a commodity server with vastly smaller resources.
Understanding the topology of real silicon systems is a large part of "optimization".
Some performance-sensitive open source libraries do varying amounts of memory topology aware optimization. The rudimentary tricks can often be worth a 2x performance boost for in-memory processing.
In the same way that really clever schedulers and disk I/O systems (they don't let the OS do it) in good databases try to optimize the average access time and variance, high-performance in-memory systems use very similar techniques to optimize the average access time to any particular piece of memory. The techniques are very similar in the abstract but there is a lot less written about the nuances of in-memory scheduling; it often involves understanding lower level details of the silicon than programmers are used to studying. The net effect is a large reduction in busy stalls and contention.
Also, people tend to forget that even though lock-free algorithms are fast on average, they tend to have a lot of overhead in systems with many cores unless they are used sparingly and accessed relatively infrequently. Eliminating that waste can have large performance benefits.
To your question: In order to minimize the need for thread coordination and optimize memory scheduling, the first thing you need to do is design algorithms and data structures that approximately match the topology of your storage, whether memory or disk or both. And that rarely looks like idealized random access memory. Then you optimize for locality of execution. I've designed database kernels that had thousands of parallel threads running. It turns out that the techniques used to eliminate almost all coordination in that case produce extremely efficient database kernels on a commodity server with vastly smaller resources.
Understanding the topology of real silicon systems is a large part of "optimization".