[petsc-dev] Bad scaling of GAMG in FieldSplit

Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 13:40:08 CDT 2018 

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:56 PM Fande Kong <fdkong.jd at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Junchao Zhang <jczhang at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Fande Kong <fdkong.jd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Junchao Zhang <jczhang at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Pierre,
>>>>   From your log_view files, I see you did strong scaling. You used 4X
>>>> more cores, but the execution time only dropped from 3.9143e+04
>>>> to 1.6910e+04.
>>>>   From my previous analysis of a GAMG weak scaling test, it looks
>>>> communication is one of the reasons that caused poor scaling.  In your
>>>> case,  VecScatterEnd time was doubled from 1.5575e+03 to 3.2413e+03. Its
>>>> time percent jumped from 1% to 17%. This time can contribute to the big
>>>> time ratio in MatMultAdd ant MatMultTranspose, misleading you guys thinking
>>>> there was load-imbalance computation-wise.
>>>>   The reason is that I found in the interpolation and restriction
>>>> phases of gamg, the communication pattern is very bad. Few processes
>>>> communicate with hundreds of neighbors with message sizes of a few bytes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We may need to truncate interpolation/restriction operators. Also do
>>> some aggressive coarsening.  Unfortunately, GAMG currently does not support.
>>>
>>
>>  Are these gamg options the truncation you thought?
>>
>
>> -pc_gamg_threshold[] <thresh,default=0> - Before aggregating the graph
>> GAMG will remove small values from the graph on each level
>> -pc_gamg_threshold_scale <scale,default=1> - Scaling of threshold on each
>> coarser grid if not specified
>>
>
> Nope.  Totally different things.
>

Well, you could use _threshold to do more aggressive coarsening, but not
for thinning out
the interpolation. There are some simple filters we might be able to use
(Luke Olson talked
about it today), but Mark is the expert.

   Matt


> Fande
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Fande,
>>>
>>>
>>>> If we can avoid this pattern algorithmically (which I don't know), or
>>>> find ways with faster communication (which I am working), then we can get
>>>> better scalability.
>>>>
>>>> --Junchao Zhang
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Pierre Jolivet <
>>>> pierre.jolivet at enseeiht.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 26 Jul 2018, at 4:24 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi Pierre,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I’m using GAMG on a shifted Laplacian with these options:
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_type preonly
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_pc_composite_type additive
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type composite
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_sub_0_ksp_pc_type jacobi
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_sub_0_pc_type ksp
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_sub_1_ksp_pc_gamg_square_graph 10
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_sub_1_ksp_pc_type gamg
>>>>> >> -st_fieldsplit_pressure_sub_1_pc_type ksp
>>>>> >> and I end up with the following logs on 512 (top) and 2048 (bottom)
>>>>> processes:
>>>>> >> MatMult          1577790 1.0 3.1967e+03 1.2 4.48e+12 1.6 7.6e+09
>>>>> 5.6e+03 0.0e+00  7 71 75 63  0   7 71 75 63  0 650501
>>>>> >> MatMultAdd        204786 1.0 1.3412e+02 5.5 1.50e+10 1.7 5.5e+08
>>>>> 2.7e+02 0.0e+00  0  0  5  0  0   0  0  5  0  0 50762
>>>>> >> MatMultTranspose  204786 1.0 4.6790e+01 4.3 1.50e+10 1.7 5.5e+08
>>>>> 2.7e+02 0.0e+00  0  0  5  0  0   0  0  5  0  0 145505
>>>>> >> [..]
>>>>> >> KSPSolve_FS_3       7286 1.0 7.5506e+02 1.0 9.14e+11 1.8 7.3e+09
>>>>> 1.5e+03 2.6e+05  2 14 71 16 34   2 14 71 16 34 539009
>>>>> >> MatMult          1778795 1.0 3.5511e+03 4.1 1.46e+12 1.9 4.0e+10
>>>>> 2.4e+03 0.0e+00  7 66 75 61  0   7 66 75 61  0 728371
>>>>> >> MatMultAdd        222360 1.0 2.5904e+0348.0 4.31e+09 1.9 2.4e+09
>>>>> 1.3e+02 0.0e+00 14  0  4  0  0  14  0  4  0  0  2872
>>>>> >> MatMultTranspose  222360 1.0 1.8736e+03421.8 4.31e+09 1.9 2.4e+09
>>>>> 1.3e+02 0.0e+00  0  0  4  0  0   0  0  4  0  0  3970
>>>>> >> [..]
>>>>> >> KSPSolve_FS_3       7412 1.0 2.8939e+03 1.0 2.66e+11 2.1 3.5e+10
>>>>> 6.1e+02 2.7e+05 17 11 67 14 28  17 11 67 14 28 148175
>>>>> >> MatMultAdd and MatMultTranspose (performed by GAMG) somehow ruin
>>>>> the scalability of the overall solver. The pressure space “only” has 3M
>>>>> unknowns so I’m guessing that’s why GAMG is having a hard time strong
>>>>> scaling.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 3M unknowns divided by 512 processes implies less than 10k unknowns
>>>>> per process. It is not unusual to see strong scaling roll off at this size.
>>>>> Also note that the time per call(!) for "MatMult" is the same for both
>>>>> cases, indicating that your run into a latency-limited regime.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Also, have a look at the time ratios: With 2048 processes,
>>>>> MatMultAdd and MatMultTranspose show a time ratio of 48 and 421,
>>>>> respectively. Maybe one of your MPI ranks is getting a huge workload?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe inside GAMG itself (how could I check this?), but since the
>>>>> timing and ratio of the MatMult look OK and the distribution of the
>>>>> pressure space is the same as the other three fields, I’m guessing this
>>>>> does not come from my global Mat, but I may be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> For the other fields, the matrix is somehow distributed nicely,
>>>>> i.e., I don’t want to change the overall distribution of the matrix.
>>>>> >> Do you have any suggestion to improve the performance of GAMG in
>>>>> that scenario? I had two ideas in mind but please correct me if I’m wrong
>>>>> or if this is not doable:
>>>>> >> 1) before setting up GAMG, first use a PCTELESCOPE to avoid having
>>>>> too many processes work on this small problem
>>>>> >> 2) have the sub_0_ and the sub_1_ work on two different
>>>>> nonoverlapping communicators of size PETSC_COMM_WORLD/2, do the solve
>>>>> concurrently, and then sum the solutions (only worth doing because of
>>>>> -pc_composite_type additive). I have no idea if this easily doable with
>>>>> PETSc command line arguments
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 1) is the more flexible approach, as you have better control over
>>>>> the system sizes after 'telescoping’.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but the advantage of 2) is that I wouldn't have one half or
>>>>> more of processes idling and I could overlap the solves of both subpc in
>>>>> the PCCOMPOSITE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m attaching the -log_view for both runs (I trimmed some options).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>>> Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Best regards,
>>>>> > Karli
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20180726/cbeb05c0/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list