On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:56 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Hi Ralph, congratulations on releasing new openmpi-1.7.5.
> By the way, opnempi-1.7.5rc3 has been slowing down our application
> with smaller size of testing data, where the time consuming part
> of our application is so called sparse solver. It's negligible
> with medium or large size data - more practical one, so I have
> been defering this problem.
> However, this slowdown disappears in the final version of
> openmpi-1.7.5. After some investigations, I found coll_ml caused
> this slowdown. The final version seems to set coll_ml_priority as zero
> Could you explain briefly about the advantage of coll_ml? In what kind
> of situation it's effective and so on ...
I'm not really the one to speak about coll/ml as I wasn't involved in it - Nathan would be the one to ask. It is supposed to be significantly faster for most collectives, but I imagine it would depend on the precise collective being used and the size of the data. We did find and fix a number of problems right at the end (which is why we dropped the priority until we can better test/debug it), and so we might have hit something that was causing your slow down.
> In addition, I'm not sure why coll_my is activated in openmpi-1.7.5rc3,
> although its priority is lower than tuned as described in the message
> of changeset 30790:
> We are initially setting the priority lower than
> tuned until this has had some time to soak in the trunk.
Were you actually seeing coll/ml being used? It shouldn't have been. However, coll/ml was getting called during the collective initialization phase so it could set itself up, even if it wasn't being used. One part of its setup is a somewhat expensive connectivity computation - one of our last-minute cleanups was removal of a static 1MB array in that procedure. Changing the priority to 0 completely disables the coll/ml component, thus removing it from even the initialization phase. My guess is that you were seeing a measurable "hit" by that procedure on your small data tests, which probably ran fairly quickly - and not seeing it on the other tests because the setup time was swamped by the computation time.
> users mailing list