On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Zhang, Junchao <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> > Yes, it is 7-point stencil. I tried your options,
> -pc_gamg_square_graph 0 -pc_gamg_threshold 0.0 -pc_gamg_repartition, and
> found they increased the time. I did not try hypre since I don't know how
> to set its options.
> > I also tried periodic boundary condition and ran it with -mat_view
> ::load_balance. It gives fewer KSP iterations and but PETSc still reports
> load
> > imbalance at coarse levels.
>
> Is the overall scaling better, worse, or the same for periodic boundary
> conditions?
>
OK, the queue job finally finished. I would worse with periodic boundary
conditions. But they have different KSP iterations and MatSOR call counts.
So the answer is not solid. See the attached figure for difference.
>
> >
> >
> > --Junchao Zhang
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote:
> > This all looks reasonable to me. The VecScatters times are a little high
> but these are fast little solves (.2 seconds each).
> >
> > The RAP times are very low, suggesting we could optimize parameters a
> bit and reduce the iteration count. These are 7 point stencils as I recall.
> You could try -pc_gamg_square_graph 0 (instead of 1) and you probably want
> '-pc_gamg_threshold 0.0'. You could also test hypre.
> >
> > And you should be able to improve coarse grid load imbalance with
> -pc_gamg_repartition.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > Mark,
> > I tried "-pc_gamg_type agg ..." options you mentioned, and also
> -ksp_type cg + PETSc's default PC bjacobi. In the latter case, to reduce
> execution time I called KSPSolve 100 times instead of 1000, and also used
> -ksp_max_it 100. In the 36x48=1728 ranks case, I also did a test with
> -log_sync. From there you can see a lot of time is spent on VecNormBarrier,
> which implies load imbalance. Note VecScatterBarrie time is misleading,
> since it barriers ALL ranks, but in reality VecScatter sort of syncs in a
> small neighborhood.
> > Barry suggested trying periodic boundary condition so that the
> nonzeros are perfectly balanced across processes. I will try that to see
> what happens.
> >
> > --Junchao Zhang
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > I used an LCRC machine named Bebop. I tested on its Intel Broadwell
> nodes. Each nodes has 2 CPUs and 36 cores in total. I collected data using
> 36 cores in a node or 18 cores in a node. As you can see, 18 cores/node
> gave much better performance, which is reasonable as routines like MatSOR,
> MatMult, MatMultAdd are all bandwidth bound.
> >
> > The code uses a DMDA 3D grid, 7-point stencil, and defines
> nodes(vertices) at the surface or second to the surface as boundary nodes.
> Boundary nodes only have a diagonal one in their row in the matrix.
> Interior nodes have 7 nonzeros in their row. Boundary processors in the
> processor grid has less nonzero. This is one source of load-imbalance. Will
> load-imbalance get severer at coarser grids of an MG level?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > You can use a simple Jacobi solver to see the basic performance of your
> operator and machine. Do you see as much time spent in Vec Scatters?
> VecAXPY? etc.
> >
> >
> > I attach a trace view figure that show activity of each ranks along the
> time axis in one KSPSove. White color means MPI wait. You can see white
> takes a large space.
> >
> > I don't have a good explanation why at large scale (1728 cores),
> processors wait longer time, as the communication pattern is still 7-point
> stencil in a cubic processor gird.
> >
> > --Junchao Zhang
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> >
> > Junchao,
> >
> > Thanks, the load balance of matrix entries is remarkably similar
> for the two runs so it can't be a matter of worse work load imbalance for
> SOR for the larger case explaining why the SOR takes more time.
> >
> > Here is my guess (and I know no way to confirm it). In the smaller
> case the overlap of different processes on the same node running SOR at the
> same time is lower than the larger case hence the larger case is slower
> because there are more SOR processes fighting over the same memory
> bandwidth at the same time than in the smaller case. Ahh, here is
> something you can try, lets undersubscribe the memory bandwidth needs, run
> on say 16 processes per node with 8 nodes and 16 processes per node with 64
> nodes and send the two -log_view output files. I assume this is an LCRC
> machine and NOT a KNL system?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Barry
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 8:29 AM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > -pc_gamg_type classical
> > >
> > > FYI, we only support smoothed aggregation "agg" (the default). (This
> thread started by saying you were using GAMG.)
> > >
> > > It is not clear how much this will make a difference for you, but you
> don't want to use classical because we do not support it. It is meant as a
> reference implementation for developers.
> > >
> > > First, how did you get the idea to use classical? If the documentation
> lead you to believe this was a good thing to do then we need to fix that!
> > >
> > > Anyway, here is a generic input for GAMG:
> > >
> > > -pc_type gamg
> > > -pc_gamg_type agg
> > > -pc_gamg_agg_nsmooths 1
> > > -pc_gamg_coarse_eq_limit 1000
> > > -pc_gamg_reuse_interpolation true
> > > -pc_gamg_square_graph 1
> > > -pc_gamg_threshold 0.05
> > > -pc_gamg_threshold_scale .0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > > OK, I have thought that space was a typo. btw, this option does not
> show up in -h.
> > > I changed number of ranks to use all cores on each node to avoid
> misleading ratio in -log_view. Since one node has 36 cores, I ran with
> 6^3=216 ranks, and 12^3=1728 ranks. I also found call counts of MatSOR etc
> in the two tests were different. So they are not strict weak scaling tests.
> I tried to add -ksp_max_it 6 -pc_mg_levels 6, but still could not make the
> two have the same MatSOR count. Anyway, I attached the load balance output.
> > >
> > > I find PCApply_MG calls PCMGMCycle_Private, which is recursive and
> indirectly calls MatSOR_MPIAIJ. I believe the following code in
> MatSOR_MPIAIJ practically syncs {MatSOR, MatMultAdd}_SeqAIJ between
> processors through VecScatter at each MG level. If SOR and MatMultAdd are
> imbalanced, the cost is accumulated along MG levels and shows up as large
> VecScatter cost.
> > > 1460: while
> > > (its--) {
> > >
> > > 1461: VecScatterBegin(mat->Mvctx,xx,mat->lvec,INSERT_VALUES,
> SCATTER_FORWARD
> > > );
> > >
> > > 1462: VecScatterEnd(mat->Mvctx,xx,mat->lvec,INSERT_VALUES,
> SCATTER_FORWARD
> > > );
> > >
> > >
> > > 1464: /* update rhs: bb1 = bb - B*x */
> > > 1465: VecScale
> > > (mat->lvec,-1.0);
> > >
> > > 1466: (*mat->B->ops->multadd)(mat->
> > > B,mat->lvec,bb,bb1);
> > >
> > >
> > > 1468: /* local sweep */
> > > 1469: (*mat->A->ops->sor)(mat->A,bb1,omega,SOR_SYMMETRIC_SWEEP,
> > > fshift,lits,1,xx);
> > >
> > > 1470: }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --Junchao Zhang
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Zhang, Junchao <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Searched but could not find this option, -mat_view::load_balance
> > >
> > > There is a space between the view and the : load_balance is a
> particular viewer format that causes the printing of load balance
> information about number of nonzeros in the matrix.
> > >
> > > Barry
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --Junchao Zhang
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > > > So the only surprise in the results is the SOR. It is
> embarrassingly parallel and normally one would not see a jump.
> > > >
> > > > The load balance for SOR time 1.5 is better at 1000 processes than
> for 125 processes of 2.1 not worse so this number doesn't easily explain
> it.
> > > >
> > > > Could you run the 125 and 1000 with -mat_view ::load_balance and
> see what you get out?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Barry
> > > >
> > > > Notice that the MatSOR time jumps a lot about 5 secs when the
> -log_sync is on. My only guess is that the MatSOR is sharing memory
> bandwidth (or some other resource? cores?) with the VecScatter and for some
> reason this is worse for 1000 cores but I don't know why.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, PETSc developers,
> > > > > I tested Michael Becker's code. The code calls the same KSPSolve
> 1000 times in the second stage and needs cubic number of processors to run.
> I ran with 125 ranks and 1000 ranks, with or without -log_sync option. I
> attach the log view output files and a scaling loss excel file.
> > > > > I profiled the code with 125 processors. It looks {MatSOR,
> MatMult, MatMultAdd, MatMultTranspose, MatMultTransposeAdd}_SeqAIJ in aij.c
> took ~50% of the time, The other half time was spent on waiting in MPI.
> MatSOR_SeqAIJ took 30%, mostly in PetscSparseDenseMinusDot().
> > > > > I tested it on a 36 cores/node machine. I found 32 ranks/node
> gave better performance (about 10%) than 36 ranks/node in the 125 ranks
> testing. I guess it is because processors in the former had more balanced
> memory bandwidth. I collected PAPI_DP_OPS (double precision operations) and
> PAPI_TOT_CYC (total cycles) of the 125 ranks case (see the attached files).
> It looks ranks at the two ends have less DP_OPS and TOT_CYC.
> > > > > Does anyone familiar with the algorithm have quick explanations?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Junchao Zhang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Michael Becker <
> michael.bec...@physik.uni-giessen.de> wrote:
> > > > > Hello again,
> > > > >
> > > > > this took me longer than I anticipated, but here we go.
> > > > > I did reruns of the cases where only half the processes per node
> were used (without -log_sync):
> > > > >
> > > > > 125 procs,1st 125 procs,2nd
> 1000 procs,1st 1000 procs,2nd
> > > > > Max Ratio Max Ratio
> Max Ratio Max Ratio
> > > > > KSPSolve 1.203E+02 1.0 1.210E+02 1.0
> 1.399E+02 1.1 1.365E+02 1.0
> > > > > VecTDot 6.376E+00 3.7 6.551E+00 4.0
> 7.885E+00 2.9 7.175E+00 3.4
> > > > > VecNorm 4.579E+00 7.1 5.803E+00 10.2
> 8.534E+00 6.9 6.026E+00 4.9
> > > > > VecScale 1.070E-01 2.1 1.129E-01 2.2
> 1.301E-01 2.5 1.270E-01 2.4
> > > > > VecCopy 1.123E-01 1.3 1.149E-01 1.3
> 1.301E-01 1.6 1.359E-01 1.6
> > > > > VecSet 7.063E-01 1.7 6.968E-01 1.7
> 7.432E-01 1.8 7.425E-01 1.8
> > > > > VecAXPY 1.166E+00 1.4 1.167E+00 1.4
> 1.221E+00 1.5 1.279E+00 1.6
> > > > > VecAYPX 1.317E+00 1.6 1.290E+00 1.6
> 1.536E+00 1.9 1.499E+00 2.0
> > > > > VecScatterBegin 6.142E+00 3.2 5.974E+00 2.8
> 6.448E+00 3.0 6.472E+00 2.9
> > > > > VecScatterEnd 3.606E+01 4.2 3.551E+01 4.0
> 5.244E+01 2.7 4.995E+01 2.7
> > > > > MatMult 3.561E+01 1.6 3.403E+01 1.5
> 3.435E+01 1.4 3.332E+01 1.4
> > > > > MatMultAdd 1.124E+01 2.0 1.130E+01 2.1
> 2.093E+01 2.9 1.995E+01 2.7
> > > > > MatMultTranspose 1.372E+01 2.5 1.388E+01 2.6
> 1.477E+01 2.2 1.381E+01 2.1
> > > > > MatSolve 1.949E-02 0.0 1.653E-02 0.0
> 4.789E-02 0.0 4.466E-02 0.0
> > > > > MatSOR 6.610E+01 1.3 6.673E+01 1.3
> 7.111E+01 1.3 7.105E+01 1.3
> > > > > MatResidual 2.647E+01 1.7 2.667E+01 1.7
> 2.446E+01 1.4 2.467E+01 1.5
> > > > > PCSetUpOnBlocks 5.266E-03 1.4 5.295E-03 1.4
> 5.427E-03 1.5 5.289E-03 1.4
> > > > > PCApply 1.031E+02 1.0 1.035E+02 1.0
> 1.180E+02 1.0 1.164E+02 1.0
> > > > >
> > > > > I also slimmed down my code and basically wrote a simple weak
> scaling test (source files attached) so you can profile it yourself. I
> appreciate the offer Junchao, thank you.
> > > > > You can adjust the system size per processor at runtime via
> "-nodes_per_proc 30" and the number of repeated calls to the function
> containing KSPsolve() via "-iterations 1000". The physical problem is
> simply calculating the electric potential from a homogeneous charge
> distribution, done multiple times to accumulate time in KSPsolve().
> > > > > A job would be started using something like
> > > > > mpirun -n 125 ~/petsc_ws/ws_test -nodes_per_proc 30 -mesh_size
> 1E-4 -iterations 1000 \\
> > > > > -ksp_rtol 1E-6 \
> > > > > -log_view -log_sync\
> > > > > -pc_type gamg -pc_gamg_type classical\
> > > > > -ksp_type cg \
> > > > > -ksp_norm_type unpreconditioned \
> > > > > -mg_levels_ksp_type richardson \
> > > > > -mg_levels_ksp_norm_type none \
> > > > > -mg_levels_pc_type sor \
> > > > > -mg_levels_ksp_max_it 1 \
> > > > > -mg_levels_pc_sor_its 1 \
> > > > > -mg_levels_esteig_ksp_type cg \
> > > > > -mg_levels_esteig_ksp_max_it 10 \
> > > > > -gamg_est_ksp_type cg
> > > > > , ideally started on a cube number of processes for a cubical
> process grid.
> > > > > Using 125 processes and 10.000 iterations I get the output in
> "log_view_125_new.txt", which shows the same imbalance for me.
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 02.06.2018 um 13:40 schrieb Mark Adams:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Junchao Zhang <
> jczh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,Michael,
> > > > >> You can add -log_sync besides -log_view, which adds barriers to
> certain events but measures barrier time separately from the events. I find
> this option makes it easier to interpret log_view output.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That is great (good to know).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This should give us a better idea if your large VecScatter costs
> are from slow communication or if it catching some sort of load imbalance.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --Junchao Zhang
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Michael Becker <
> michael.bec...@physik.uni-giessen.de> wrote:
> > > > >> Barry: On its way. Could take a couple days again.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Junchao: I unfortunately don't have access to a cluster with a
> faster network. This one has a mixed 4X QDR-FDR InfiniBand 2:1 blocking
> fat-tree network, which I realize causes parallel slowdown if the nodes are
> not connected to the same switch. Each node has 24 processors (2x12/socket)
> and four NUMA domains (two for each socket).
> > > > >> The ranks are usually not distributed perfectly even, i.e. for
> 125 processes, of the six required nodes, five would use 21 cores and one
> 20.
> > > > >> Would using another CPU type make a difference
> communication-wise? I could switch to faster ones (on the same network),
> but I always assumed this would only improve performance of the stuff that
> is unrelated to communication.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Michael
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> The log files have something like "Average time for zero size
> MPI_Send(): 1.84231e-05". It looks you ran on a cluster with a very slow
> network. A typical machine should give less than 1/10 of the latency you
> have. An easy way to try is just running the code on a machine with a
> faster network and see what happens.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, how many cores & numa domains does a compute node have? I
> could not figure out how you distributed the 125 MPI ranks evenly.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --Junchao Zhang
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Michael Becker <
> michael.bec...@physik.uni-giessen.de> wrote:
> > > > >>> Hello again,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> here are the updated log_view files for 125 and 1000 processors.
> I ran both problems twice, the first time with all processors per node
> allocated ("-1.txt"), the second with only half on twice the number of
> nodes ("-2.txt").
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:24 AM, Michael Becker <
> michael.bec...@physik.uni-giessen.de>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I noticed that for every individual KSP iteration, six vector
> objects are created and destroyed (with CG, more with e.g. GMRES).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> Hmm, it is certainly not intended at vectors be created and
> destroyed within each KSPSolve() could you please point us to the code that
> makes you think they are being created and destroyed? We create all the
> work vectors at KSPSetUp() and destroy them in KSPReset() not during the
> solve. Not that this would be a measurable distance.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I mean this, right in the log_view output:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Memory usage is given in bytes:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Object Type Creations Destructions Memory Descendants' Mem.
> > > > >>>> Reports information only for process 0.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --- Event Stage 0: Main Stage
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --- Event Stage 1: First Solve
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --- Event Stage 2: Remaining Solves
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Vector 23904 23904 1295501184 0.
> > > > >>> I logged the exact number of KSP iterations over the 999
> timesteps and its exactly 23904/6 = 3984.
> > > > >>> Michael
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Am 24.05.2018 um 19:50 schrieb Smith, Barry F.:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please send the log file for 1000 with cg as the solver.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> You should make a bar chart of each event for the two cases
> to see which ones are taking more time and which are taking less (we cannot
> tell with the two logs you sent us since they are for different solvers.)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:24 AM, Michael Becker <
> michael.bec...@physik.uni-giessen.de>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I noticed that for every individual KSP iteration, six vector
> objects are created and destroyed (with CG, more with e.g. GMRES).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> Hmm, it is certainly not intended at vectors be created and
> destroyed within each KSPSolve() could you please point us to the code that
> makes you think they are being created and destroyed? We create all the
> work vectors at KSPSetUp() and destroy them in KSPReset() not during the
> solve. Not that this would be a measurable distance.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> This seems kind of wasteful, is this supposed to be like this?
> Is this even the reason for my problems? Apart from that, everything seems
> quite normal to me (but I'm not the expert here).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> <log_view_125procs.txt><log_vi
> > > > >>>>> ew_1000procs.txt>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <o-wstest-125.txt><Scaling-loss.png><o-wstest-1000.txt><
> o-wstest-sync-125.txt><o-wstest-sync-1000.txt><MatSOR_
> SeqAIJ.png><PAPI_TOT_CYC.png><PAPI_DP_OPS.png>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <o-wstest-periodic-36x6.txt><o-wstest-gamg-agg-repartition-36x6.txt>
>
>
