[FLASH-USERS] Load Balancing with the Burn Unit

James Guillochon jguillochon at cfa.harvard.edu
Fri Apr 25 17:08:13 EDT 2014


Hi Sean, that's fantastic! I'll give it a try and let you know how it works
for me.


On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Sean Couch <smc at flash.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> I’ve done this before with what I think was good success.  It’s a pretty
> straight-forward, if hack-tastic, modification.  What I did was to modify
> bn_burner.F90 such that the variable xoktot became a counter of the max
> number of burn sub-steps of any zone in a given block.  I use this as an
> estimate of the “work” required to advance the block and this is what will
> go into the Morton curve weighting.  So around line 198 in bn_burner.F90 I
> had:
>
> *Line 198* *Line 198*     end if   end if         xoktot  = xoktot +
> real(nok)   !!xoktot  = xoktot + real(nok)     !! Custom usage by SMC
>  xoktot = max(xoktot, real(nok))   xbadtot = xbadtot + real(nbad)
>  xbadtot = xbadtot + real(nbad)
>
>
> I then changed Burn.F90 to simply reset this counter:
>
>  *Line 54* *Line 54*       use Burn_data, ONLY:  bn_nuclearTempMin,
> bn_nuclearTempMax, bn_nuclearDensMin, &    use Burn_data, ONLY:
>  bn_nuclearTempMin, bn_nuclearTempMax, bn_nuclearDensMin, &        &
> bn_nuclearDensMax, bn_nuclearNI56Max, bn_useShockBurn, &         &
> bn_nuclearDensMax, bn_nuclearNI56Max, bn_useShockBurn, &         &
> bn_smallx, bn_useBurn, bn_meshMe        &   bn_smallx, bn_useBurn,
> bn_meshMe, xoktot    use bn_interface, ONLY :  bn_mapNetworkToSpecies,
> bn_burner   use bn_interface, ONLY :  bn_mapNetworkToSpecies, bn_burner
>    *Line 114*  *Line 114*    ! start the timer ticking    ! start the
> timer ticking   call Timers_start("burn")   call Timers_start("burn")
>  ! Restart counter     xoktot = 0.0      ! make sure that guardcells are
> up to date   ! make sure that guardcells are up to date    if (.NOT.
> bn_useShockBurn) then   if (.NOT. bn_useShockBurn) then            call
> Grid_fillGuardCells(CENTER, ALLDIR)      call Grid_fillGuardCells(CENTER,
> ALLDIR)      endif   endif
>
>
>  Now in Burn_computeDt.F90 I accessed some private Grid data (shame on
> me, but hey, I said it was hack-tastic):
>
> *Line 79*  *Line 79*                             solnData,   &
>                   solnData,   &                            dt_burn,
> dt_minloc)                             dt_burn, dt_minloc)      use
> Burn_data, ONLY: bn_enucDtFactor, bn_useBurn, bn_meshMe   use Burn_data,
> ONLY: bn_enucDtFactor, bn_useBurn, bn_meshMe, xoktot    use
> Driver_interface, ONLY : Driver_abortFlash   use Driver_interface, ONLY :
> Driver_abortFlash     use tree, ONLY : bflags    implicit none   implicit
> none    #include "constants.h" #include "constants.h" *Line 130*  *Line
> 131*             ! the inverse of what we want, and then only (un)invert
> that inverse             ! the inverse of what we want, and then only
> (un)invert that inverse            ! if it is a reasonable number.
>       ! if it is a reasonable number.            energyRatioInv =
> abs(solnData(ENUC_VAR,i,j,k)) / eint_zone             energyRatioInv =
> abs(solnData(ENUC_VAR,i,j,k)) / eint_zone              !if
> (energyRatioInv > 1.0e-1) bflags(1,blockid) = 4.0
> bflags(1,blockid) = xoktot   #ifdef DTBN_VAR
> solnData(DTBN_VAR,i,j,k) = xoktot   #endif            if (energyRatioInv
> > dt_tempInv) then            if (energyRatioInv > dt_tempInv) then
>          dt_tempInv = energyRatioInv               dt_tempInv =
> energyRatioInv                dt_temp = 1.0 / energyRatioInv
>  dt_temp = 1.0 / energyRatioInv
>
> You can ignore DTBN_VAR.  That was just a variable I used for diagnostics.
>  The key is the bflags array.  That comes from the PARAMESH tree data
> module and basically does nothing.  It’s just a handy array for this,
> PARAMESH does nothing else with it.
>
> Then, finally, in
> source/Grid/GridMain/paramesh/paramesh4/Paramesh4dev/PM4_package/mpi_source/mpi_amr_refine_derefine.F90
> I added the following:
>
> *Line 309*  *Line 309*        work_block(:) = 0.        work_block(:) = 0.
>      Do i = 1,lnblocks       Do i = 1,lnblocks           if
> (nodetype(i).eq.1) then          if (nodetype(i).eq.1) then
>  work_block(i) = 2.  !<<< USER EDIT !            work_block(i) = 2.  !<<<
> USER EDIT               work_block(i) = max(2.,float(bflags(1,i)))   !<<<
> by SMC  #ifdef FLASH_DEBUG_AMR #ifdef FLASH_DEBUG_AMR
>  lnblocks_leaf = lnblocks_leaf + 1              lnblocks_leaf =
> lnblocks_leaf + 1 #endif  #endif
>
>
> This sets the Morton curve weighting parameter for the block to the
> maximum number of burn sub-steps that were required for advancement.  In my
> limited experimentation, this straightened out the Morton curve in regions
> of rapid burning nicely.  Fewer ‘burning’ blocks per MPI rank.  Increased
> the efficiency of the simulations I was running quite a bit.  Caveat
> emptor:  this all could use some tweaking for your particular application
> and YMMV.
>
> Best regards,
> Sean
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Sean M. Couch
> Hubble Fellow
> Flash Center for Computational Science
> Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics
> The University of Chicago
> 5747 S Ellis Ave, Jo 315
> Chicago, IL  60637
> (773) 702-3899
> www.flash.uchicago.edu/~smc
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 3:00 PM, James Guillochon <jguillochon at cfa.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all, I'm running a simulation using one of the burning networks, which
> unfortunately is leading to a runtime efficiency of 35% as only ~10% of
> blocks are above the burning network thresholds, but those blocks take
> several times longer than non-burning regions.
>
> I noticed that the only weighting done currently is to give leaf blocks a
> factor of "2", and everything else "1". I think it would be relatively easy
> to count cells that have burned in a block, and then add an additional work
> factor to account for this overhead (say number of cells burned times a
> constant, with a block in which all cells are burning being a factor of
> 5-10 times more expensive). Ideally I'd want FLASH's efficiency to be 80%+
> no matter what the Burn unit is doing.
>
> My question is in implementation: Would it make sense to add to the
> "work_block" (which is in the "tree" module) scaling factor directly in the
> Burn unit? Or is this the wrong place in the code to make this change?
>
> Thanks!
> - James
>
> --
> James Guillochon
> Einstein Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian CfA
> jguillochon at cfa.harvard.edu
>
>
>


-- 
James Guillochon
Einstein Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian CfA
jguillochon at cfa.harvard.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://flash.rochester.edu/pipermail/flash-users/attachments/20140425/38498c2d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the flash-users mailing list