Since MUMPS and SuperLU don't have much profiling, you really need to use a profiling system, probably Intel's VTune is the way to go, to understand the performance on that machine.
Barry > On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:40 AM, Jakub Kruzik <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am looking at a single node performance of MUMPS and SuperLU on KNL 7230 > (on Theta). I am using KSP example ex2 > (http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/src/ksp/ksp/examples/tutorials/ex2.c.html) > with m X n = 2880 x 2880. KNL runs in cache and quad modes. > > Times in seconds for 24 cores: > mumps: 279 > superlu: 326 > cg: 116 > > Times in seconds for 64 cores: > mumps: 316 > superlu: 410 > cg : 49 > > The performance for 24 cores is OK - both direct solvers are roughly 3.5 > times slower than 2x E5-2680v3. (According to people from Intel, the single > core performance of KNL is about 3-4 times lower than that of E5-2680v3). > However, strong scalability is really bad. > > I am using cray-petsc/3.7.6.0 module. I tried my own PETSc compilation with > MKL and MUMPS/SuperLU installed by PETSc configure but the results are > similar. > > Please find attached Theta submission script and logs for KNL and Haswells. > > Why the performance of direct solvers on a full node is so bad? > > Best, > Jakub > <batch.sub><knl.log><haswell.log>
