Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] coll_ml_priority in openmpi-1.7.5
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-21 17:41:29


One of the authors of ML mentioned to me off-list that he has an idea what might have been causing the slowdown. They're actively working on tweaking and making things better.

I told them to ping you -- the whole point is that ml is supposed to be *better* than our existing collectives, so if it's not, we should fix that before we make ml be the default. :-)

On Mar 21, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> 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
>> again.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>>
>> Tetsuya
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/