Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ShenEOS scaling issues #378

Closed
brycelelbach opened this issue Jul 10, 2012 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@brycelelbach
Copy link
Member

commented Jul 10, 2012

[reported by manderson] [Trac time Tue Mar 27 22:32:58 2012] The shen eos component now performs comparable to the standalone fortran equivalent from C. Ott when run on 1 thread. However, it does not scale at all:

./sheneos_test --num-workers 1 --hpx:threads 1 --num-partitions 1 gives 0.0405 sec
./sheneos_test --num-workers 2 --hpx:threads 2 --num-partitions 2 gives 0.1280 sec
./sheneos_test --num-workers 4 --hpx:threads 4 --num-partitions 4 gives 0.2280 sec
./sheneos_test --num-workers 8 --hpx:threads 8 --num-partitions 8 gives 0.5500 sec

Varying the number of partitions alters these numbers; however, the optimal result is to keep the same number of partitions as the number of threads, as shown here.

I have eliminated the time overhead associated with shen_connect in these measurements as well as all other unrelated overhead. I have removed the srand and random_shuffle in case they were affecting the scaling.

The shen eos component does not scale at all. In fact, running the same amount of work on one thread is nearly twice as fast compared to running on eight threads:

./sheneos_test --num-workers 8 --hpx:threads 1 --num-partitions 1 gives 0.2350 sec

@brycelelbach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 10, 2012

[comment by manderson] [Trac time Tue Mar 27 22:34:17 2012] Note that the scaling test performed here are weak scaling tests. Strong scaling test results are even worse.

@brycelelbach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 10, 2012

[comment by manderson] [Trac time Wed Mar 28 17:52:43 2012] the latest numbers...

40 x 40 x 40
1 0.0728 (100 partition)
2 0.0859 (100 partitions)
4 0.108 (300 partitions)
8 0.151 (200 partitions)
12 0.220 (300 partitions)

control case: 0.0549

100 x 100 x 100
1 1.096 (300 partitions)
2 1.374 (180 partitions)
4 1.650 (350 partitions)
8 2.589 (550 partitions)

@brycelelbach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 10, 2012

[comment by blelbach] [Trac time Sun Apr 22 05:30:30 2012] Hartmut, what's the progress on this? Does the bulk interface stuff resolve this?

@brycelelbach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 10, 2012

[comment by blelbach] [Trac time Sun Jun 3 21:26:57 2012] Can I get an update on the status of this, please?

@hkaiser

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 12, 2012

I think those have been resolved some time ago. Closing the ticket now...

@hkaiser hkaiser closed this Aug 12, 2012

@ghost ghost assigned hkaiser Aug 12, 2012

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.