On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:15, Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Ian Hinder <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8 Jul 2015, at 16:53, Ian Hinder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 8 Jul 2015, at 15:14, Erik Schnetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I added a second benchmark, using a Thornburg04 patch system, 8th order >>> finite differencing, and 4th order patch interpolation. The results are >>> >>> original: 8.53935e-06 sec >>> rewrite: 8.55188e-06 sec >>> >>> this time with 1 thread per MPI process, since that was most efficient in >>> both cases. Most of the time is spent in inter-patch interpolation, which >>> is much more expensive than in a "regular" case since this benchmark is run >>> on a single node and hence with very small grids. >>> >>> With these numbers under our belt, can we merge the rewrite branch? >> >> The "jacobian" benchmark that I gave you was still a pure kernel benchmark, >> involving no interpatch interpolation. It just measured the speed of the >> RHSs when Jacobians were included. I would also not use a single-threaded >> benchmark with very small grid sizes; this might have been fastest in this >> artificial case, but in practice I don't think we would use that >> configuration. The benchmark you have now run seems to be more of a >> "complete system" benchmark, which is useful, but different. >> >> I think it is important that the kernel itself has not gotten slower, even >> if the kernel is not currently a major contributor to runtime. We >> specifically split out the advection derivatives because they made the code >> with 8th order and Jacobians a fair bit slower. I would just like to see >> that this is not still the case with the new version, which has changed the >> way this is handled. > > I have now run my benchmarks on both the original and the rewritten > McLachlan. I seem to find that the ML_BSSN_* functions in > Evolve/CallEvol/CCTK_EVOL/CallFunction/thorns, excluding the constraint > calculations, are between 11% and 15% slower with the rewrite branch, > depending on the details of the evolution. See attached plot. This is on > Datura with quite old CPUs (Intel Xeon CPU X5650 2.67GHz). > > What exactly do you measure -- which bins or routines? Does this involve > communication? Are you using thorn Dissipation? I take all the timers in Evolve/CallEvol/CCTK_EVOL/CallFunction/thorns that start with ML_BSSN_ and eliminate the ones containing "constraints" (case insensitive). This is running on two processes, one node, 6 threads per node. Threads are correctly bound to cores. There is ghostzone exchange between the processes, so yes, there is communication in the ML_BSSN_SelectBCs SYNC calls, but it is node-local. -- Ian Hinder http://members.aei.mpg.de/ianhin
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
