<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Co-Array vs OpenMP using Intel ifort v12: Process based Co-Array is a real dog in Intel® Moderncode for Parallel Architectures</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Moderncode-for-Parallel/Co-Array-vs-OpenMP-using-Intel-ifort-v12-Process-based-Co-Array/m-p/769585#M110</link>
    <description>I am testing co-array using /Qcoarray:shared on my core 2 duo PC. It looks like Intel's co-array is just a wrapper to mpiexec. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;For example, if I run a co-array application, there will be 3 processes launched, presumably, one master controlling process, and 2 worker processes. From what I can tell, the co-array are not using multi-thread, but rather, process based. If I do a ctrl-C in the middle of the run, it aborts 2 process, and a message saying mpiexec abort is done. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So, am I right that Intel's co-array (with /Qcoarray:shared) is process based MPI wrapper?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Basically on above observation, I expect the co-array code will be much slower than the multi-threading based OpenMP code.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I actually tested some small codes in "A Comparison of Co-Array Fortran and OpenMP&lt;BR /&gt;Fortran for SPMD Programming" (http://www7300.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_nlom/globalnlom/pubs-data/wallcraft-2002.pdf). In deed, the co-array version of the calculating PI is about 30-40% slower than the OpenMP version. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;A stunning and disappointing finding.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:01:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>a_zhaogtisoft_com</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-04-04T22:01:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Co-Array vs OpenMP using Intel ifort v12: Process based Co-Array is a real dog</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Moderncode-for-Parallel/Co-Array-vs-OpenMP-using-Intel-ifort-v12-Process-based-Co-Array/m-p/769585#M110</link>
      <description>I am testing co-array using /Qcoarray:shared on my core 2 duo PC. It looks like Intel's co-array is just a wrapper to mpiexec. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;For example, if I run a co-array application, there will be 3 processes launched, presumably, one master controlling process, and 2 worker processes. From what I can tell, the co-array are not using multi-thread, but rather, process based. If I do a ctrl-C in the middle of the run, it aborts 2 process, and a message saying mpiexec abort is done. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So, am I right that Intel's co-array (with /Qcoarray:shared) is process based MPI wrapper?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Basically on above observation, I expect the co-array code will be much slower than the multi-threading based OpenMP code.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I actually tested some small codes in "A Comparison of Co-Array Fortran and OpenMP&lt;BR /&gt;Fortran for SPMD Programming" (http://www7300.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_nlom/globalnlom/pubs-data/wallcraft-2002.pdf). In deed, the co-array version of the calculating PI is about 30-40% slower than the OpenMP version. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;A stunning and disappointing finding.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:01:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Moderncode-for-Parallel/Co-Array-vs-OpenMP-using-Intel-ifort-v12-Process-based-Co-Array/m-p/769585#M110</guid>
      <dc:creator>a_zhaogtisoft_com</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-04T22:01:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

