[petsc-users] MatMultTranspose memory usage

[Karl Lin]

Hi, Richard

thank you for the detailed information. This was our guess as well.

Regards,

Karl

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:36 PM Mills, Richard Tran via petsc-users <
petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Hi Kun and Karl,
>
> If you are using the AIJMKL matrix types and have a recent version of MKL,
> the AIJMKL code uses MKL's inspector-executor sparse BLAS routines, which
> are described at
>
>
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/mkl-developer-reference-c-inspector-executor-sparse-blas-routines
>
> The inspector-executor analysis routines take the AIJ (compressed sparse
> row) format data from PETSc and then create a copy in an optimized,
> internal layout used by MKL. We have to keep PETSc's own, AIJ
> representation around, as it is needed for several operations that MKL does
> not provide. This does, unfortunately, mean that roughly double (or more,
> depending on what MKL decides to do) the amount of memory is required. The
> reason you see the memory usage increase right when a MatMult() or
> MatMultTranspose() operation occurs is that the we default to a "lazy"
> approach to calling the analysis routine (mkl_sparse_optimize()) until an
> operation that uses an MKL-provided kernel is requested. (You can use an
> "eager" approach that calls mkl_sparse_optimize() during MatAssemblyEnd()
> by specifying "-mat_aijmkl_eager_inspection" in the PETSc options.)
>
> If memory is at enough of a premium for you that you can't afford the
> extra copy used by the MKL inspector-executor routines, then I suggest
> using the usual PETSc AIJ format instead of AIJMKL. AIJ is fairly well
> optimized for many cases (and even has some hand-optimized kernels using
> Intel AVX/AVX2/AVX-512 intrinsics) and often outperforms AIJMKL. You should
> try both AIJ and AIJMKL, anyway, to see which is faster for your
> combination of problem and computing platform.
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
>
> On 7/17/19 8:46 PM, Karl Lin via petsc-users wrote:
>
> We also found that if we use MatCreateSeqAIJ, then no more memory increase
> with matrix vector multiplication. However, with MatCreateMPIAIJMKL, the
> behavior is consistent.
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:26 PM Karl Lin <karl.linkui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MatCreateMPIAIJMKL
>>
>> parallel and sequential exhibit the same behavior. In fact, we found that
>> doing matmult will increase the memory by the size of matrix as well.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:55 PM Zhang, Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Karl:
>>> What matrix format do you use? Run it in parallel or sequential?
>>> Hong
>>>
>>> We used /proc/self/stat to track the resident set size during program
>>>> run, and we saw the resident set size jumped by the size of the matrix
>>>> right after we did matmulttranspose.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:04 PM hong--- via petsc-users <
>>>> petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kun:
>>>>> How do you know 'MatMultTranpose creates an extra memory copy of
>>>>> matrix'?
>>>>> Hong
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was using MatMultTranpose and MatMult to solver a linear system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However we found out, MatMultTranpose create an extra memory copy of
>>>>>> matrix for its operation. This extra memory copy is not stated everywhere
>>>>>> in petsc manual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This basically double my memory requirement to solve my system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember mkl’s routine can do inplace matrix transpose vector
>>>>>> product, without transposing the matrix itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this always the case? Or there is way to make petsc to do inplace
>>>>>> matrix transpose vector product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help is greatly appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Schlumberger-Private
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20190718/2dc2564f/attachment-0001.html>