[Pw_forum] k-points parallelization in pwscf 4.2.1
Gabriele Sclauzero
sclauzer at sissa.it
Tue Feb 15 12:10:58 CET 2011
OK, thanks.
It is as Paolo suggested: some parts of the code are not parallelized over k-points. This said, I don't see why these parts of the code show a much larger timing when going from the serial run to the run with k-point parallelization. For instance, I would expect that newd has the same timing more or less, but it takes 3 times more. Also the timing of sum_band looks quite higher. Maybe there is a communication overhead between MPI processes, or the memory contention problem that was mentioned before (since the volume of data between cores and main memory largely increases when passing from 1 to 6 pools).
GS
Il giorno 15/feb/2011, alle ore 11.37, Davide Sangalli ha scritto:
> Dear Paolo and Gabriele,
> thanks a lot for all your comments.
>
> For Gabriele, in case you are still interested, I post the details of my
> calculations.
>
> Best regards and thank you again,
> Davide
>
> ****************************************************************
> TEST 1: Serial run
> init_run : 24.83s CPU 25.13s WALL ( 1 calls)
> electrons : 349.01s CPU 351.40s WALL ( 1 calls)
> forces : 17.99s CPU 18.04s WALL ( 1 calls)
> stress : 44.14s CPU 44.30s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by init_run:
> wfcinit : 10.50s CPU 10.64s WALL ( 1 calls)
> potinit : 1.93s CPU 1.97s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by electrons:
> c_bands : 209.73s CPU 211.25s WALL ( 10 calls)
> sum_band : 65.96s CPU 66.35s WALL ( 10 calls)
> v_of_rho : 8.64s CPU 8.82s WALL ( 11 calls)
> newd : 70.57s CPU 70.81s WALL ( 11 calls)
> mix_rho : 0.79s CPU 0.79s WALL ( 10 calls)
>
> Called by c_bands:
> init_us_2 : 1.45s CPU 1.46s WALL ( 138 calls)
> cegterg : 205.73s CPU 206.86s WALL ( 60 calls)
>
> Called by *egterg:
> h_psi : 119.93s CPU 119.97s WALL ( 217 calls)
> s_psi : 24.87s CPU 24.88s WALL ( 217 calls)
> g_psi : 1.04s CPU 1.03s WALL ( 151 calls)
> cdiaghg : 3.98s CPU 4.07s WALL ( 211 calls)
>
> Called by h_psi:
> add_vuspsi : 24.87s CPU 24.87s WALL ( 217 calls)
>
> General routines
> calbec : 39.51s CPU 39.52s WALL ( 289 calls)
> cft3s : 64.52s CPU 65.52s WALL ( 22216 calls)
> interpolate : 0.79s CPU 0.79s WALL ( 21 calls)
> davcio : 0.01s CPU 0.63s WALL ( 198 calls)
>
> Parallel routines
>
> PWSCF : 7m16.35s CPU time, 7m19.59s WALL time
>
> ****************************************************************
> TEST 1: kpts parallelization
> init_run : 29.99s CPU 30.29s WALL ( 1 calls)
> electrons : 441.37s CPU 453.52s WALL ( 1 calls)
> forces : 51.92s CPU 52.91s WALL ( 1 calls)
> stress : 133.94s CPU 137.38s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by init_run:
> wfcinit : 2.64s CPU 2.68s WALL ( 1 calls)
> potinit : 1.92s CPU 2.02s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by electrons:
> c_bands : 40.54s CPU 42.66s WALL ( 10 calls)
> sum_band : 177.87s CPU 182.15s WALL ( 10 calls)
> v_of_rho : 11.17s CPU 11.74s WALL ( 11 calls)
> newd : 228.49s CPU 229.61s WALL ( 11 calls)
> mix_rho : 2.67s CPU 2.68s WALL ( 10 calls)
>
> Called by c_bands:
> init_us_2 : 0.64s CPU 0.68s WALL ( 21 calls)
> cegterg : 39.15s CPU 40.36s WALL ( 10 calls)
>
> Called by *egterg:
> h_psi : 34.15s CPU 34.19s WALL ( 37 calls)
> s_psi : 1.64s CPU 1.64s WALL ( 37 calls)
> g_psi : 0.22s CPU 0.22s WALL ( 26 calls)
> cdiaghg : 0.48s CPU 0.48s WALL ( 36 calls)
>
> Called by h_psi:
> add_vuspsi : 1.67s CPU 1.67s WALL ( 37 calls)
>
> General routines
> calbec : 2.83s CPU 2.83s WALL ( 49 calls)
> cft3s : 25.51s CPU 25.77s WALL ( 3904 calls)
> interpolate : 1.57s CPU 1.58s WALL ( 21 calls)
> davcio : 0.00s CPU 0.09s WALL ( 10 calls)
>
> Parallel routines
>
> PWSCF : 10m57.44s CPU time, 11m14.40s WALL time
>
> ****************************************************************
> TEST 1: FFT parallelization
>
> init_run : 7.12s CPU 8.04s WALL ( 1 calls)
> electrons : 71.85s CPU 77.28s WALL ( 1 calls)
> forces : 8.49s CPU 8.68s WALL ( 1 calls)
> stress : 21.95s CPU 22.46s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by init_run:
> wfcinit : 1.61s CPU 2.06s WALL ( 1 calls)
> potinit : 0.74s CPU 0.79s WALL ( 1 calls)
>
> Called by electrons:
> c_bands : 35.48s CPU 38.71s WALL ( 11 calls)
> sum_band : 16.47s CPU 17.71s WALL ( 11 calls)
> v_of_rho : 2.59s CPU 2.75s WALL ( 12 calls)
> newd : 18.12s CPU 18.81s WALL ( 12 calls)
> mix_rho : 0.42s CPU 0.44s WALL ( 11 calls)
>
> Called by c_bands:
> init_us_2 : 0.65s CPU 0.66s WALL ( 150 calls)
> cegterg : 34.41s CPU 37.31s WALL ( 66 calls)
>
> Called by *egterg:
> h_psi : 23.01s CPU 25.34s WALL ( 239 calls)
> s_psi : 1.95s CPU 1.94s WALL ( 239 calls)
> g_psi : 0.23s CPU 0.23s WALL ( 167 calls)
> cdiaghg : 2.90s CPU 3.18s WALL ( 233 calls)
>
> Called by h_psi:
> add_vuspsi : 1.91s CPU 1.91s WALL ( 239 calls)
>
> General routines
> calbec : 3.54s CPU 3.81s WALL ( 317 calls)
> cft3s : 12.24s CPU 15.25s WALL ( 24298 calls)
> interpolate : 0.35s CPU 0.37s WALL ( 23 calls)
> davcio : 0.00s CPU 0.54s WALL ( 216 calls)
>
> Parallel routines
> fft_scatter : 4.34s CPU 6.95s WALL ( 24298 calls)
>
> PWSCF : 1m49.61s CPU time, 1m56.75s WALL time
>
>
>
>
> On 02/14/2011 06:22 PM, Paolo Giannozzi wrote:
>> Also notice that parallelization on k-points has (in principle)
>> a linear speedup on the diagonalization of H and related operations
>> depending on the number of k-points, but not for other operations
>> depending upon the charge density such as calculation of V[n(r)].
>> The latter are typically small in comparison with the former, but
>> it depends a lot upon the specific system. FFT parallelization
>> distributes both calculations (and yes, it distributes most memory,
>> I stand by my statement)
>>
>> P.
>
> Davide Sangalli
> MDM Lab, IMM, CNR
> Agrate (MI), Italy
> _______________________________________________
> Pw_forum mailing list
> Pw_forum at pwscf.org
> http://www.democritos.it/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
§ Gabriele Sclauzero, EPFL SB ITP CSEA
PH H2 462, Station 3, CH-1015 Lausanne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.democritos.it/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20110215/a196e46a/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Pw_forum
mailing list