My understanding of groups is that they allow running different code on
different processes. Thus I don't see any use for creation of a mesh
object, expression object, etc. outside of the group it is defined on. Is
there any reason to do that?

"Why wouldn't it?" - it shouldn't. Exactly  why it's a good check. If the
user runs different code on different processes however, things like meshes
and functions may be created in a different order, destroying the form
uniqueness. If that happens I would like to know early.

Martin
26. nov. 2014 10:11 skrev "Johan Hake" <[email protected]>:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Surely the group_comm object does not exist on processes outside the
>> group, and the Expression object construction can only happen within the
>> group?
>>
> ​There is nothing that prevent you to construct an mpi group on all
> processes. However it seems one cannot do anything with it on ranks that is
> not included in the group.
>
>> I don't see how anything else makes sense. But clear docstring is always
>> good.
>>
> ​Sure.​
>
>
>> Btw, can we assert that the jit signatures match across the group?
>>
>
> ​Why wouldn't it?
>
> Johan​
>
>
>
>> I'm a bit nervous about bugs in nonuniform mpi programs, and that would
>> be a good early indicator of something funny happening.
>>
>> Martin
>> 26. nov. 2014 09:43 skrev "Garth N. Wells" <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Johan Hake <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Nov, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just pushed some fixes to the jit interface of DOLFIN. Now one
>>>>>>>> can jit on different mpi groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Previously jiting was only done on rank 1 of the mpi_comm_world.
>>>>>>>> Now it is done on rank 1 of any passed group communicator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean rank 0?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​Yes, of course.​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  There is no demo atm showing this but a test has been added:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   test/unit/python/jit/test_jit_with_mpi_groups.py
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here an expression, a subdomain, and a form is constructed on
>>>>>>>> different ranks using group. It is somewhat tedious as one need to
>>>>>>>> initialize PETSc with the same group, otherwise PETSc will deadlock 
>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> initialization (the moment a PETSc la object is constructed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is ok. It's arguably a design flaw that we don't make the user
>>>>>>> handle MPI initialisation manually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​Sure, it is just somewhat tedious. You cannot start your typical
>>>>>> script with importing dolfin.​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The procedure in Python for this is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Construct mpi groups using mpi4py
>>>>>>>> 2) Initalize petscy4py using the groups
>>>>>>>> 3) Wrap groups to petsc4py comm (dolfin only support petsc4py not
>>>>>>>> mpi4py)
>>>>>>>> 4) import dolfin
>>>>>>>> 5) Do group specific stuff:
>>>>>>>>    a) Function and forms no change needed as communicator
>>>>>>>>       is passed via mesh
>>>>>>>>    b) domain = CompiledSubDomain("...", mpi_comm=group_comm)
>>>>>>>>    c) e = Expression("...", mpi_comm=group_comm)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not so clear whether passing the communicator means that the
>>>>>>> Expression is only defined/available on group_comm, or if group_comm is
>>>>>>> simply to control who does the JIT. Could you clarify this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My knowledge is not that good in MPI. I have only tried to access
>>>>>> (and construct) the Expression on ranks included in that group. Also 
>>>>>> when I
>>>>>> tried construct one using a group communicator on a rank that is not
>>>>>> included in the group, I got an when calling MPI_size on it. There is
>>>>>> probably a perfectly reasonable explaination to this. ​​
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you clarify what goes on behind-the-scenes with the
>>>>> communicator? Is it only used in a call to get the process rank? What do
>>>>> the ranks other than zero do?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ​Not sure what you want to know. Instead of using mpi_comm_world to
>>>> construct meshes you use the group communicator. This communicator has its
>>>> own local group of ranks​. JITing is still done on rank 0 of the local
>>>> group, which might and most often is different from rank 0 process of the
>>>> mpi_comm_word.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to be clear (and have in the docstring) that
>>>
>>>    e = Expression("...", mpi_comm=group_comm)
>>>
>>> is valid only on group_comm (if this is the case), or make clear that
>>> the communicator only determines the process that does the JIT.
>>>
>>> If we required all Expressions to have a domain/mesh, as Martin
>>> advocates, things would be clearer.
>>>
>>>  The group communicator works exactly like the world communicator but
>>>> now on just a subset of the processes. There were some sharp edges with
>>>> deadlocks as a consequence, when barriers were taken on the world
>>>> communicator. This is done by default when dolfin is imported and petcs
>>>> gets initialized with the world communicator. So we need to initialized
>>>> petsc using the group communicator. Other than that there are not real
>>>> differences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't sound right. PETSc initialisation does not take a
>>> communicator. It is collective on MPI_COMM_WORLD, but each PETSc object
>>> takes a communicator at construction, which can be something other than
>>> MPI_COMM_WORLD or MPI_COMM_SELF.
>>>
>>> Garth
>>>
>>>
>>>> ​Johan​
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Garth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Please try it out and report any sharp edges. A demo would also be
>>>>>>>> fun to include :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could run tests on different communicators to speed them up on
>>>>>>> machines with high core counts!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johan​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Garth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Johan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fenics mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics

Reply via email to