Charm++ parallel programming system

[Jim Phillips <jim AT ks.uiuc.edu>]

You just need to do the experiment.  For the latest NAMD running in smp 
mode we do better using 32 cores per node, although the GPU version may 
have some serial bottleneck issues where using 8 (of 16) is faster.

Jim


On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Sam White wrote:

> Yes, Charm++ will view Blue Waters as having 32 SMP cores per node, but it
> depends on the application and system whether using one PE per hardware
> thread (hyperthread) or per core will perform best. On Blue Waters I
> believe there is little to no benefit from using all 32 hardware threads
> for NAMD and many applications because there are only 16 floating point
> units per node, so two hardware threads share one FPU. On a system with
> heavier-weight, more independent hyperthread hardware, this will differ.
> But experiment with your application and use whichever configuration
> performs best for you!
>
> - Sam
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Scott Field 
> <sfield AT astro.cornell.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >   I'm glad to hear it worked out!
> >
> >   I have a follow up question (one which may be most appropriate for
> > another thread). On blue waters I've been launching 32 (or 31) threads per
> > nodes for smp builds and 32 (or 31) processes per node for non-smp builds.
> > Should I be using 16 instead? In Sam's example he uses 16 cores/node.
> >
> >   Does anyone have experience comparing the charm++ on bluewaters when
> > viewing each node as having 16 vs 32 cores? Documentation seems to suggest
> > viewing the system as having 32 cores (
> > https://bluewaters.ncsa.illinois.edu/charm
> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bluewaters.ncsa.illinois.edu_charm&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=x3NNBo1sW-0Ro900LIARhw_4yZMfh7AfgFTrqQHfc5M&m=WFVsfsIfP0WT_7KkxxpnIww6uczJ0b93joaYaIMhtYM&s=FquRmIr1N38TK1J0sutlNO3-2PQ5pGVe9eCuiYsmSNk&e=>
> > ).
> >
> > Best,
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Leonardo Duarte 
> > <leo.duarte AT gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for all the answers.
> > > You were right. The problem was the +pemap and +commap parameters.
> > > Since I was not defining them, the same thread was been used for worker
> > > and communication.
> > > Now my simple example that was spending 11 min is taking just 3 secs. I
> > > know I have to improve this a lot but the 11 min was too weird to be right.
> > > I was seeking for some build or running command line mistake, and that
> > > was it.
> > >
> > > Just for the record, I changed back to the PrgEnv-gnu since all of you
> > > said there is no reason to be slow.
> > >
> > > Thanks you all for the help.
> > >
> > > Leonardo.