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
Clover overhead in inverter ~50% #271
Comments
Actually, I think I know one sure-fire way of improving performance. If we prepare a copy of the sw field with the correct ordering (even-odd, I guess), this should help quite a bit. Other than that I'm not sure what to do. |
Hi Bartek, |
Hi Luigi, the scalasca output is in: /work/hch02/hch028/invert_test/invert_test_hybrid_hs_scalasca_512_64/invert_test_clover The inversions of course have differing iteration numbers so only relative weights between the "hot-spots" are meaningful. |
thanks Bartek! can you give me access to these directories? |
They should be world-readable, at least according to the unix permissions. |
I get: [hch02b@juqueen2 hch02]$ cd /work/hch02/hch028/invert_test/invert_test_hybrid_hs_scalasca_512_64/invert_test_clover |
oh, the grand-grand-parent directory had the wrong permissions, it should be fixed now |
yes! |
Okay, so I went ahead and did the long overdue measurement of the overhead of using the clover term in the inverter.
The result is that 50% of the time spent in the operator is spent in the hopping matrix, 25% in clover_inv and 25% in clover_gamma5.
As a comparison, without the clover term 50% of time is spent in H_eo_tm_inv_psi and 50% of time is spent tm_sub_H_eo_gamma5.
Keeping this in mind I'm a bit surprised that with the clover term the performance reported in the inverter, not taking into account the clover overhead, is about 50-60% lower than for the standard operator...
Unfortunately I can't really give a recommendation for improving the situation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: