Hi Maik, there is already an in-between solution for Python that sits at the compiler level using the "golf" toolchain which is a subset of "foss" (everything except MPI, so GCC + OpenBLAS + LAPACK + FFTW, but no ScaLAPACK and no FFTW with MPI). https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs/blob/master/easybuild/easyconfigs/p/Python/Python-3.6.4-golf-2018a.eb it's identical to foss-2018a except for mpi4py.
I've got some PRs in transit to get the remaining pieces in there: iimkl + Python 3.6.4 built with it (subset of "intel") https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs/pull/6092 which depends on this easyblock PR: https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks/pull/1393 (which Kenneth reviewed but then fell through the cracks) and last but not least my toolchain PRs to allow multiple subtoolchains: https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild-framework/pull/2466 this allows a lot of sharing e.g. for goolfc (=fosscuda): goolf => subtoolchains: gompi and golf goolfc => subtoolchains: gompic and golfc golfc => subtoolchains: gcccuda and golf so with this structure anything compiled without MPI and without CUDA, but with linear algebra, can be shared. Cheers, Bart On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 at 08:59, Vanzo, Davide <[email protected]> wrote: > Maik, > > I double Jack's explanation on why QT5 is built at the highest toolchain > level. Similarly in our stack we moved Python to the GCC/iccifort level by > removing the packages that depend on MPI/FFTW and install Qt5 with the > GCC/iccofort toolchains. > Moving Python to a lower toolchain in the official easyconfig repo is > something that we have been discussing for a while and we are making steps > in that directions. In the meantime nothing stops you to do are we and Jack > did. > > As for CUDA, the use of toolchains like `fosscuda` and `intelcuda` allow > to avoid the need of adding version suffixes for MPI and all other software > built with CUDA support. In our case we prefer to avoid version suffixes as > much as we can since they introduce unnecessary complication for our users. > Obviously this is possible only if you are using hierarchical modules. > > -- > *Davide Vanzo, PhD* > *Application Developer* > *Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering* > Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE) > Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201 > (615)-875-9137 > www.vanderbilt.edu/accre > > > On 2018-06-20 10:19:58-05:00 [email protected] wrote: > > [oops.... meant to send to the list] > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [easybuild] Minimal vs full toolchain, Qt, CUDA etc. > Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:56:06 -0500 > From: Jack Perdue &lt;[email protected]&gt; > To: Maik Schmidt &lt;[email protected]&gt; > > > > Howdy Maik, > > Here we use a stripped down Python as a builddependency to build: > > &amp;nbsp; Qt5-5.10.1-GCCcore-6.4.0-Python-2.7.14-bare.eb > and > &amp;nbsp; Qt5-5.10.1-GCCcore-6.4.0-Python-3.6.3-bare.eb > > By default, the full Python needs MPI/maths (for numpy) so > if you build Qt with the regular Python you have to promote > the toolchain.&amp;nbsp; Python-bare just provides the basics. > > Works fairly well. > > There are other initiatives in EB to clean this up > using Python-core and the like.&amp;nbsp; But this is what > we've been using for now. > > As for CUDA.... I wondered the same.... the answer was that > OpenMPI has hooks for CUDA so if you include CUDA early > in the toolchain (while building OpenMPI) then you get > some MPI-enabled CUDA.&amp;nbsp; I/we haven't much experience > with that yet (curious to see what TensorFlow can do) but > that's the reasoning for that (though I do wish it was easier > like you suggest) > > As ever, there are examples at: > > &amp;nbsp; > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siliconslick.com%2Feasybuild%2Feasyconfigs%2F&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdavide.vanzo%40vanderbilt.edu%7C969e7c72f65249da661e08d5d6c145e8%7Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad%7C0%7C1%7C636651047945281105&amp;amp;sdata=uZgbznCATjG8G%2BC6o5Pxkvz1UtS2qIJ8NiLSqYVn9Ys%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 > > See ada and terra. > > Jack Perdue > Lead Systems Administrator > High Performance Research Computing > TAMU Division of [email protected] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhprc.tamu.edu&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdavide.vanzo%40vanderbilt.edu%7C969e7c72f65249da661e08d5d6c145e8%7Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad%7C0%7C1%7C636651047945281105&amp;amp;sdata=7DXnIKRWuF6BXcxiI1YSxFxdv7M8W8Gdb116krNrxUQ%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 > HPRC Helpdesk: [email protected] > > On 06/20/2018 09:21 AM, Maik Schmidt wrote: > &amp;gt; Hi, I've been asked by one of our users why Qt5 is built with > the full > &amp;gt; toolchain (foss or intel) even though it does not really use MPI > or > &amp;gt; MKL for that matter. I've looked at the dependencies of Qt > itself and > &amp;gt; apparently he is correct, why is this not GCCcore? There's no > reason > &amp;gt; to use the full toolchain here, right? > &amp;gt; > &amp;gt; On another note, what has been the reasoning behind introducing > an > &amp;gt; entire new toolchain only to add CUDA? it really makes not much > sense > &amp;gt; to me, because then I have to build a lot of duplicate software > that > &amp;gt; doesn't even need CUDA just to support this toolchain (foss vs > &amp;gt; fosscuda)... e.g. why would I need a HDF5 -fosscuda if it is > exactly > &amp;gt; the same as the -foss version? > &amp;gt; > &amp;gt; The solution with just adding a versionsuffix and CUDA as a > dependency > &amp;gt; to software requiring it seemed much cleaner to me, but maybe I'm > &amp;gt; missing something here... > &amp;gt; > &amp;gt; Thanks for your input, > &amp;gt; > &amp;gt; Maik > &amp;gt; > > &lt;/[email protected]&gt;&lt;/[email protected]&gt; > > -- Dr. Bart E. Oldeman | [email protected] | [email protected] Scientific Computing Analyst / Analyste en calcul scientifique McGill HPC Centre / Centre de Calcul Haute Performance de McGill | http://www.hpc.mcgill.ca Calcul Québec | http://www.calculquebec.ca Compute/Calcul Canada | http://www.computecanada.ca Tel/Tél: 514-396-8926 | Fax/Télécopieur: 514-396-8934
