[petsc-users] Poor speed up for KSP example 45

[Mark Adams]

Also, a better test is see where streams pretty much saturates, then run
that many processors per node and do the same test by increasing the nodes.
This will tell you how well your network communication is doing.

But this result has a lot of stuff in "network communication" that can be
further evaluated. The worst thing about this, I would think, is that the
partitioning is blind to the memory hierarchy of inter and intra node
communication. The next thing to do is run with an initial grid that puts
one cell per node and the do uniform refinement, until you have one cell
per process (eg, one refinement step using 8 processes per node), partition
to get one cell per process, then do uniform refinement to get a
reasonable sized local problem. Alas, this is not easy to do, but it is
doable.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:04 PM Mark Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> wrote:

> I would guess that you are saturating the memory bandwidth. After you make
> PETSc (make all) it will suggest that you test it (make test) and suggest
> that you run streams (make streams).
>
> I see Matt answered but let me add that when you make streams you will
> seed the memory rate for 1,2,3, ... NP processes. If your machine is decent
> you should see very good speed up at the beginning and then it will start
> to saturate. You are seeing about 50% of perfect speedup at 16 process. I
> would expect that you will see something similar with streams. Without
> knowing your machine, your results look typical.
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:05 PM Amin Sadeghi <aminthefresh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ran KSP example 45 on a single node with 32 cores and 125GB memory
>> using 1, 16 and 32 MPI processes. Here's a comparison of the time spent
>> during KSP.solve:
>>
>> - 1 MPI process: ~98 sec, speedup: 1X
>> - 16 MPI processes: ~12 sec, speedup: ~8X
>> - 32 MPI processes: ~11 sec, speedup: ~9X
>>
>> Since the problem size is large enough (8M unknowns), I expected a
>> speedup much closer to 32X, rather than 9X. Is this expected? If yes, how
>> can it be improved?
>>
>> I've attached three log files for more details.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Amin
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20200325/ad46d045/attachment.html>