Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Beginner
33 Views

Cluster vs. multicore different scalability

Hello,
I'm running on two machines two parallel algorithms for matrix multiplication to assess scalability, with OpenMPI.
The first machine is a cluster of 4 Quad Core, total 16 CPUs available, the second is a Dell PC with 16 GB RAM and Intel Core i7 processor (total 8 CPUs available).
Algorithm 1 performs multiplication as follows:
[bash]{  unsigned int i, j, k;

   double sum;

   for (i = 0; i < A.m; i++) // Rows
   {  for (j = 0; j < B.n; j++) // Cols
      {  sum = 0;
         for (k = 0; k < A.n; k++) sum += A.rows * B.rows;
         C.rows = sum;
      }
   }
}
[/bash]
In algorithm 2 I used pointers instead to enhance speedup:
[bash]{  unsigned int i, j, k;

    double *c_ptr = &C.rows[0][0];
    double *b_ptr = &B.rows[0][0];
    double *a_ptr = &A.rows[0][0];

   for (i = 0; i < A.m; i++) // Rows
   {
       for (j = 0; j < B.dim; j++) // Cols
      {
          double sigma = 0;
          double *A_ptr = (a_ptr + i*A.dim);
          double *B_ptr = b_ptr + j*B.dim;

         for (k = 0; k < A.dim; k++)
         {
            sigma += (*A_ptr) * (*B_ptr);
            A_ptr++;
            B_ptr++;
         }
        *c_ptr++ = sigma;
      }
   }
}[/bash]
The MPI structure and data decomposition is the same for both programs.
Algorithm 1 shows linear scalability on cluster up to 8 processors and linear sccalability up to 4 processors on PC. Algorithm 2 shows linear scalability on cluster up to 8 processors but is not scalable at all on PC.
Tests were performed multiplying dense square matrices 1000x1000 and 5000x5000.
Does anyone know what could the difference be? Is it in the algorithm or in the machine?
Are there issues with dynamic memory allocation in MPi environment?
Thanks for your help,

Carlo Maria
0 Kudos
4 Replies
Highlighted
Black Belt
33 Views

You omit a lot of important information, such as whether your compiler swaps loops and vectorizes, and why you don't make it easier for the compiler to do so.
No doubt, you're aware that HyperThreading doesn't accelerate properly code matrix multiply, yet you seem to expect otherwise.
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
33 Views

Hello,
my compiler is mpic++ with default optimisation options. How is it possible to make it easier for the compiler?
I didn't expect a great acceleration, but I can't understand why the two algorithms performs so differently in terms of scalability on the PC. I attach the speedup comparison on the PC.
Algorithm comparison
Regards,
Carlo Maria
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Black Belt
33 Views

mpic++ could be any MPI and a variety of compilers. If it's g++, mpic++ -v would confirm it, and show whether you have a recent enough version to expect optimization. Then you would probably need to declare the pointers as * __restrict__ to enable auto-vectorization with -O3 -ffast-math -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1
To optimize for core I7 or Xeon 55xx, you would need a recent enough g++ to accept -mtune=barcelona. -march=corei7 isn't supported until g++ 4.6 as far as I know.
You would want to do at least minimal checking to be certain that you are using all cores in your quad core MPI runs (top could be sufficient). Of course, your multi-core scaling is more likely to be good if you don't use optimization in the compilation (and so get least performance per core).
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
33 Views

Thank you for your answer, it was of great help. In fact after checking I noticed I was using g++ 4.4.
0 Kudos