|
|
| Line 114: |
Line 114: |
|
| |
|
| == Edge Collapse == | | == Edge Collapse == |
| | * Collapse is performed in 3 places, afterreconstruction, after surface refinement, after volume refienement |
| | |
| | {| class="wikitable" |
| | |+ time for mesh coarsening for openMP and Argobots |
| | ! cores |
| | !40 |
| | !20 |
| | !10 |
| | ! 5 |
| | ! 1 |
| | | Argobots |
| | |0.1 |
| | |0.13 |
| | |0.24 |
| | |0.48 |
| | |2.06 |
| | | OpenMP (guided,scheduling) |
| | |0.07 |
| | |0.13 |
| | |0.25 |
| | |0.49 |
| | |1.96 |
| | } |
|
| |
|
| = Common Interface = | | = Common Interface = |
Revision as of 09:57, 16 September 2019
Objective
Replace native/system threads with Argobots tasklets.
Goal offload load balancing and thread manipulation to Argobots and ultimately to PREMA
Data
Smoothing
- 5 iterations of smoothing are applied for all cases
- case is delta wing 500k target complexity from scitech paper
Data format (min,avg,max) % of roolbaks per iteration , total smoothing time
|
|
cores
|
40
|
20
|
10
|
5
|
1
|
| OpenMP
|
| static
|
chunck 1
|
(0.25,0.26,0.27)
|
13.07
|
(0.11,0.12,0.13)
|
23.02
|
(0.05,0.05,0.06)
|
45.42
|
|
|
| chunck 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dynamic
|
chunck 1
|
(61.6,61.8,62.1)
|
5.18
|
(58.9,59.1,59.5)
|
9.46
|
(51.13,51.45,51.76)
|
20.7
|
(42,42.4,42.8)
|
46.42
|
(0,0,0)
|
318.22
|
| chunck 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| guided
|
chunck 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| guided
|
chunck 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Argobots
|
| chuck 1
|
(1.8,1.9,3)
|
10
|
(1.6,1.6,1.9)
|
18
|
(1.5,1.5,1.6)
|
35
|
(0.86,1.2,1.7)
|
71
|
(0,0,0)
|
330
|
| chunk 10
|
(0.46,0.50,0.95)
|
10.15
|
(0.28,0.30,0.38)
|
17.34
|
(0.15,0.15,0.20)
|
34.37
|
(0.08,0.09,0.18)
|
69.57
|
(0,0,0)
|
322
|
Edge Collapse
- Collapse is performed in 3 places, afterreconstruction, after surface refinement, after volume refienement
time for mesh coarsening for openMP and Argobots
| cores
|
40
|
20
|
10
|
5
|
1
|
Argobots
|
0.1
|
0.13
|
0.24
|
0.48
|
2.06
|
OpenMP (guided,scheduling)
|
0.07
|
0.13
|
0.25
|
0.49
|
1.96
}
Common Interface
Implemented an abstract interface for creating tasks
/**
* @brief launch tasks using the abt_wrapper and wait until they all finish
* For this version of the function the user_function must expect a pointer
* to one of the elemnts of the provided task_vector
*
* @param user_task_args vector of tasks
* @param user_func the user function to be executed, type should be void func(void*),
* where argument is ptr to an item in user_task_args
* @param nthreads number of threads to use
* @param chuck size of the "unit of work"
*/
template<typename FunctionType, typename UserTaskArgs>
inline void task_for(std::vector<UserTaskArgs>& user_task_args, FunctionType user_func,int nthreads, size_t chuck = 10)
- Two level task creation
- Create 2*nthreads (level-0) tasks that statically divide the iteration space into user tasks. This allows for multithreaded task creation and better initial load balancing.
- Each level0 task will create level-1 tasks that will execute chunck times
- abstracts 138 (with documentation) loc to 1.
TODO
- remove void typecasting
- Variadic template
Important Findings
- For operations applied on neighboring entities (vertices,tetrahedra) a bigger chunk size in OpenMP plays a very imporant role
in the chance of rollbacks. This is because a small chunk is associated with different cores and thus increases the propability of roolback.
- In Argobots.PREMA because we launch the tasks in two stages, many chuncks are grouped together and thus this chance is lower.
--Christos Tsolakis 18:11, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
Pre-Implementation Notes
- There are Blocking and non-blocking tasks.
- Both can wait for their children
- Blocking can wait(yield) on Argobbots specific mutexes, locks etc
- There is a task create and join capability
- Thread id is can be acquired within in the task ( we need it in CDT3D in order to know in which memory pool to allocate ith no syncronization)
- Preferably we would like many tasks created in a tree-like fashion so that task initialization cost can be distributed
- In create_vertices we could use blockable tasks (spinlocks can be replaced with ABT spinlocks) also atomic locks can become atomic "read locks"
- remember to tweak stack size to the size required by predicates.
- Candidates for porting:
- (Vertex-based) smoothing (easy)
- Edge collapse (easy)
- vertex creation (modetate)
- custom bucket based load balancer
- parallel reconnection (moderate)
- custom bucket based load balancer
--Christos Tsolakis 19:49, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Previous Discussions
Ideas
Try first at element granularity :
Refactor Local Reconnection loop so that a function of type
for every element t :
attempt_flip(t)
attempt_flip will be a tasklet in the Arbobots nomenclature (ie the lightest work units, that run to executing and offer no blocking)
Bonus present it in a power-aware fashion
Advantages
- Offload load balancing from CDT3D to PREMA.
- Allow take advantage from PREMA's future plans on memory locality awareness on DSM systems.
- Ability to "boost" a CDT3D instance if more than on of them are running on the same PREMA process.
- Reason: If we have more that one CDT3D instance a shared task pool will provide access to more parallelism when one of the CDT3D instances runs a section of the code sequencially or with small number of threads.
- Example: Two CDT3D instances (A &B) with 8 threads sharing a task pool. If A runs a sequential part of the code, B can use up to 17 threads to run its parallel parts. ( Caveat: Starvation may appear see solution below using groups.)
- Indirect contribution to PDR.
Details
- Bucket-level granularity since element-level would to too fine.
- Should be have constant size of buckets or constant number of buckets(current implementation):
- TODO Gather data on time per bucket (Histogram)
- TODO Use histogram distribution to create mini benchmark/test application for PREMA.
- Constant size of bucket will allow for CDT3D to come closer to PODM ie cavity level parallelism.
- As a first attempt we can try to replace
push to thread pool to push to arbobots pool this should have no runtime overhead. (Use example code from Polykarpos).
- Keep buckets alive.
- Replace Mesh Partitioning with bucket rebalancing in parallel.
- Bucket rebalancing task may launch additional tasks. there is no need of synchonization between rebalancing and mesh operation.
- Task crearion and distribution will be done recursively.
- Update global inactive tertahedra pointer carefully.(CAS, one per bucket)
- Thread-id will be replaced by stream id.
- Thread-id is used (a) to write to a memory pool that no other thread is writing. (b) To tag locked vertices
- Ultimately we would like to recast all parallel parts of CDT3D into parallel executrion modes with a unique interface, having thus only one part of the code, interfacing with Argobots. Moreover, a proper refactoring will allow thread-based implementation to co-exist as a fallback option when CDT3D is compiled without Argobots.
- Thread groups is also a interesting and usefull idea towards building this integration.
- Problem WITHOUT groups : If we have two CDT3D instances ( A & B) running on the same PREMA process, a unique task-pool will be offered by PREMA. This means that tasks (with varying size) from either instance A or B will be pushed into the task-pool. Due to the non-deterministict nature of the task-scheduling there is a possibbility that one CDT3D instance will starve because few of its tasks are waiting into the task-pool while the other one consumes all the available threads.
- Solution: Divide requested number of threads of the two CDT3D instances into two groups. Use hierachical work stealing to give priority first to local tasks and then to remote.
|