Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Working Groups/HPC/Mins_2016_09_30


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2016-11-11T09:03:36+01:00 (4 years ago)
Author:
mikebell
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Working Groups/HPC/Mins_2016_09_30

    v1 v1  
     1'''NEMO HPC WG: Fri 30 Sept 2016''' 
     2 
     3Attending:  Lucien Anton (Cray), Jeremy Appleyard (Invidia), Mike Bell (Met Office, chair), Miguel Castrillo (BSC), Maff Glover (Met Office), Tim Graham (Met Office), Dmitry Kuts (Intel), Claire Levy (CNRS), Silvia Mocaverro (CMCC), Andy Porter (STFC), Stan Posey (Invidia), Martin Schreiber (Uni Exeter), Julien le Sommer (CNRS), Oriol Tinto (BSC)   
     4 
     5 
     6 
     7== 1.   Actions from previous meetings == 
     8  
     9Martin, Tim, Silvia, Claire, Miguel and Andy to agree details of the timing interface. Done 
     10 
     11Tim and Silvia to gather information on the NEMO memory leak issue. Silvia sent out a summary prior to the meeting. Done 
     12 
     13 
     14== 2.   Progress setting up standard configurations for performance testing (sub-group) == 
     15  
     16The GYRE and ORCA025/LIM benchmarks have been set up by Tim and Miguel. The GYRE configuration has an automatic compilation option which will be added to the ORCA025 configuration.  
     17 
     18Sylvia and Cyril have performed tests (i) executing the GYRE sequential code on a single core of the node; (ii) executing more than one instance of this sequential code concurrently on the same node (each one on a different core); and have compared the execution times of the two tests. Results show a gap between the two tests (~20% on IB node, ~ 25% on SB node) and reinforce the idea that we should analyze the performance of the code by executing more instances of the sequential code (which allows to avoid the parallelization overhead, but allows to simulate the concurrency among the parallel processes) 
     19 
     20Action: Tim to check which routines GYRE uses (to check they cover the important ones) and to consider whether a configuration with a sloping bathymetry should be used.    
     21  
     22 
     23== 3.   Progress on agreeing performance metrics and single core performance testing (sub-group) == 
     24A perf_regions code has been developed by members of the sub-group as a flexible replacement for the timer module calls in NEMO. This utility could be used fairly widely and is available at https://github.com/schreiberx/perf_regions 
     25 
     26A script has been written to replace timer calls by perf_regions calls. Tim has tested it with the GYRE configuration and plans to make it work without hand-edits and for other configurations.  
     27 
     28Members of the sub-group have access to Sandybridge, Ivybridge and Haswell processors.  
     29 
     30'''Action''': Martin, Tim and Dmitri to investigate access to Knightslanding processors.  
     31 
     32Dmitry said that we could have access to the Intel’s Endeavour cluster (KNL is in public, so we just need NDA to access). 
     33 
     34'''Action''': Silvia and Dmitry to discuss access to KNL processors 
     35 
     36There is an issue with over-counting of floating point operations (by up to a factor of 5) in some circumstances on some Intel processors. The sub-group will discuss this further.  
     37Andy suggested that a Fortran parser might be used to calculate/estimate the number of floating point operations. We expect to know within a month whether this issue is going to be a serious obstacle.  
     38 
     39Lucien suggested that changing the frequency of processors can help to distinguish memory bound and computation bound codes.   
     40 
     41 
     42== 4.   Memory leaks at NEMO version 3.6 (Silvia, Tim) == 
     43 
     44The NEMO systems team is seeking some expert advice on the memory leaks. The problem appears to be intermittent, dependent on forcing frequency and to afflict more than one compiler. Martin suggested an approach for generating more information about the leaks.  
     45 
     46'''Action''': Claire to arrange a discussion with Martin and relevant NEMO system team members   
     47 
     48 
     49== 5.   Work/plans on OpenMP directives (Silvia + others ?)  == 
     50  
     51Silvia has implemented OpenMP directives in a development branch for the GYRE and ORCA2/LIM configurations and added some optimisations so that hybrid OpenMP and MPI is faster than MPI on Sandybridge processors. Mondher is testing the directives. The plan is to merge the OpenMP directives into the stable release at the next merge party.    
     52  
     53 
     54== 6.   Status of proposals for funding == 
     55  
     56The Copper proposal will not be funded.   
     57 
     58ESI-WACE is looking to assess the performance of a 1 km global NEMO demonstrator but does not have resources ear-marked to set one up.  
     59 
     60IS-ENES2 now includes a small item of joint work between STFC and CMCC on PSyKAl.   
     61 
     62Jean-Marc Molines did a lot of work assessing and improving the computational performance of the Grenoble 1NM north Atlantic NEMO configuration. IO bottle-necks were a particular issue.  
     63 
     64Action: Julien to circulate the reports on performance testing of the Grenoble 1NM north Atlantic NEMO configuration.   
     65 
     66 
     67== 7.   NEMO development strategy == 
     68  
     69A NEMO development strategy was published in 2014. It established points of concensus and points where more discussion is needed and has guided the work of the NEMO Systems Team. The 2017 version of the strategy will be discussed at the NEMO developers’ meetings  (a) at the end of October (b) in mid Dec – early Jan and (c) in March.  
     70 
     71Questions considered in the HPC chapter should include: suitable targets and expectations for IO performance; the impact of AGRIF on HPC performance.  
     72 
     73The members of this group should review the HPC chapter and agree where there is concensus. The sub-group will lead the writing.     
     74 
     75 
     76== 8.   AOB == 
     77 
     78The next meeting should review progress on the message passing actions agreed in the early meetings of the group.  
     79 
     80The sub-group should consider which actions on performance assessment could appear in the 2017 NEMO Systems Team plan.    
     81 
     82 
     83== 9.   Date for next meeting   == 
     84  
     85'''Action''': Mike to call the next meeting before the NEMO developers’ committee in mid Dec – early Jan. Mike will do a Doodle poll once that date is set.   
     86