git branch --contains barry/2019-09-01/robustify-version-check balay/jed-gitlab-ci .... master
Make a new branch from your current branch, add like -feature-sf-on-gpu to the end of the name and merge in jczhang/feature-sf-on-gpu configure and test with that. Barry > On Sep 1, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > Junchao and Barry, > > I am using mark/fix-cuda-with-gamg-pintocpu, which is built on barry's > robustify branch. Is this in master yet? If so, I'd like to get my branch > merged to master, then merge Junchao's branch. Then us it. > > I think we were waiting for some refactoring from Karl to proceed. > > Anyway, I'm not sure how to proceed. > > Thanks, > Mark > > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 8:45 AM Zhang, Junchao <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 8:04 PM Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 4:28 PM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Any explanation for why the scaling is much better for CPUs and than GPUs? > Is it the "extra" time needed for communication from the GPUs? > > The GPU work is well load balanced so it weak scales perfectly. When you put > that work in the CPU you get more perfectly scalable work added so it looks > better. For instance, the 98K dof/proc data goes up by about 1/2 sec. from > the 1 node to 512 node case for both GPU and CPU, because this non-scaling is > from communication that is the same for both cases > > > Perhaps you could try the GPU version with Junchao's new MPI-aware CUDA > branch (in the gitlab merge requests) that can speed up the communication > from GPUs? > > Sure, Do I just checkout jczhang/feature-sf-on-gpu and run as ussual? > > Use jsrun --smpiargs="-gpu" to enable IBM MPI's cuda-aware support, then add > -use_gpu_aware_mpi in option to let PETSc use that feature. > > > > Barry > > > > On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:56 AM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > Here is some more weak scaling data with a fixed number of iterations (I > > have given a test with the numerical problems to ORNL and they said they > > would give it to Nvidia). > > > > I implemented an option to "spread" the reduced coarse grids across the > > whole machine as opposed to a "compact" layout where active processes are > > laid out in simple lexicographical order. This spread approach looks a > > little better. > > > > Mark > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46 PM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > Ahh, PGI compiler, that explains it :-) > > > > Ok, thanks. Don't worry about the runs right now. We'll figure out the > > fix. The code is just > > > > *a = (PetscReal)strtod(name,endptr); > > > > could be a compiler bug. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:23 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > I am getting this error with single: > > > > > > 22:21 /gpfs/alpine/geo127/scratch/adams$ jsrun -n 1 -a 1 -c 1 -g 1 > > > ./ex56_single -cells 2,2,2 -ex56_dm_vec_type cuda -ex56_dm_mat_type > > > aijcusparse -fp_trap > > > [0] 81 global equations, 27 vertices > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: *** unknown floating point error occurred *** > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: The specific exception can be determined by running in a > > > debugger. When the > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: debugger traps the signal, the exception can be found > > > with fetestexcept(0x3e000000) > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: where the result is a bitwise OR of the following flags: > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: FE_INVALID=0x20000000 FE_DIVBYZERO=0x4000000 > > > FE_OVERFLOW=0x10000000 FE_UNDERFLOW=0x8000000 FE_INEXACT=0x2000000 > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: likely location of problem given in stack below > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Stack Frames > > > ------------------------------------ > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Note: The EXACT line numbers in the stack are not > > > available, > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: INSTEAD the line number of the start of the function > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: is given. > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] PetscDefaultFPTrap line 355 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/sys/error/fp.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] PetscStrtod line 1964 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/sys/objects/options.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] PetscOptionsStringToReal line 2021 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/sys/objects/options.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] PetscOptionsGetReal line 2321 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/sys/objects/options.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] PetscOptionsReal_Private line 1015 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/sys/objects/aoptions.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] KSPSetFromOptions line 329 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/ksp/ksp/interface/itcl.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] SNESSetFromOptions line 869 > > > /autofs/nccs-svm1_home1/adams/petsc/src/snes/interface/snes.c > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Error Message > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Floating point exception > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: trapped floating point error > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: See https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html > > > for trouble shooting. > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Development GIT revision: v3.11.3-1685-gd3eb2e1 > > > GIT Date: 2019-08-13 06:33:29 -0400 > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: ./ex56_single on a arch-summit-dbg-single-pgi-cuda named > > > h36n11 by adams Wed Aug 14 22:21:56 2019 > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Configure options --with-cc=mpicc --with-cxx=mpiCC > > > --with-fc=mpif90 COPTFLAGS="-g -Mfcon" CXXOPTFLAGS="-g -Mfcon" > > > FOPTFLAGS="-g -Mfcon" --with-precision=single --with-ssl=0 --with-batch=0 > > > --with-mpiexec="jsrun -g 1" --with-cuda=1 --with-cudac=nvcc > > > CUDAFLAGS="-ccbin pgc++" --download-metis --download-parmetis > > > --download-fblaslapack --with-x=0 --with-64-bit-indices=0 > > > --with-debugging=1 PETSC_ARCH=arch-summit-dbg-single-pgi-cuda > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: #1 User provided function() line 0 in Unknown file > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:51 PM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh, doesn't even have to be that large. We just need to be able to look > > > at the flop rates (as a surrogate for run times) and compare with the > > > previous runs. So long as the size per process is pretty much the same > > > that is good enough. > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 8:45 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > I can run single, I just can't scale up. But I can use like 1500 > > > > processors. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:31 PM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh, are all your integers 8 bytes? Even on one node? > > > > > > > > Once Karl's new middleware is in place we should see about reducing > > > > to 4 bytes on the GPU. > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 7:44 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, I'll run single. It a bit perverse to run with 4 byte floats and > > > > > 8 byte integers ... I could use 32 bit ints and just not scale out. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:48 PM Smith, Barry F. <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't even care if it converges, just put in a fixed number > > > > > of iterations. The idea is to just get a baseline of the possible > > > > > improvement. > > > > > > > > > > ECP is literally dropping millions into research on "multi > > > > > precision" computations on GPUs, we need to have some actual numbers > > > > > for the best potential benefit to determine how much we invest in > > > > > further investigating it, or not. > > > > > > > > > > I am not expressing any opinions on the approach, we are just in > > > > > the fact gathering stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:35 PM Smith, Barry F. > > > > > > <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you be able to make one run using single precision? Just > > > > > > single everywhere since that is all we support currently? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience in engineering at least is single does not work for FE > > > > > > elasticity. I have tried it many years ago and have heard this from > > > > > > others. This problem is pretty simple other than using Q2. I > > > > > > suppose I could try it, but just be aware the FE people might say > > > > > > that single sucks. > > > > > > > > > > > > The results will give us motivation (or anti-motivation) to have > > > > > > support for running KSP (or PC (or Mat) in single precision while > > > > > > the simulation is double. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > For example if the GPU speed on KSP is a factor of 3 over the > > > > > > double on GPUs this is serious motivation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Mark Adams <mfad...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI, Here is some scaling data of GAMG on SUMMIT. Getting about > > > > > > > 4x GPU speedup with 98K dof/proc (3D Q2 elasticity). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is weak scaling of a solve. There is growth in iteration > > > > > > > count folded in here. I should put rtol in the title and/or run a > > > > > > > fixed number of iterations and make it clear in the title. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments welcome. > > > > > > > <out_cpu_012288><out_cpu_001536><out_cuda_012288><out_cpu_000024><out_cpu_000192><out_cuda_001536><out_cuda_000192><out_cuda_000024><weak_scaling_cpu.png><weak_scaling_cuda.png> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <weak_scaling_gpu_compact_spread.png><weak_scaling_cpu.png><spread.tar><compact.tar> >
