On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 1:38 PM Junchao Zhang <junchao.zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark, I think you can benchmark individual vector operations, and once we > get reasonable profiling results, we can move to solvers etc. > Can you suggest a code to run or are you suggesting making a vector benchmark code? > > --Junchao Zhang > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:09 PM Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:44 PM Barry Smith <bsm...@petsc.dev> wrote: >> >>> >>> Here except for VecNorm the GPU is used effectively in that most of >>> the time is time is spent doing real work on the GPU >>> >>> VecNorm 402 1.0 4.4100e-01 6.1 1.69e+09 1.0 0.0e+00 0.0e+00 >>> 4.0e+02 0 1 0 0 20 9 1 0 0 33 30230 225393 0 0.00e+00 0 >>> 0.00e+00 100 >>> >>> Even the dots are very effective, only the VecNorm flop rate over the >>> full time is much much lower than the vecdot. Which is somehow due to the >>> use of the GPU or CPU MPI in the allreduce? >>> >> >> The VecNorm GPU rate is relatively high on Crusher and the CPU rate is >> about the same as the other vec ops. I don't know what to make of that. >> >> But Crusher is clearly not crushing it. >> >> Junchao: Perhaps we should ask Kokkos if they have any experience with >> Crusher that they can share. They could very well find some low level magic. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 24, 2022, at 12:14 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mark, can we compare with Spock? >>>> >>> >>> Looks much better. This puts two processes/GPU because there are only 4. >>> <jac_out_001_kokkos_Spock_6_1_notpl.txt> >>> >>> >>>