Some multithreaded code I just wrote appears to run slower under hyperthreaded CPUs - i.e. disabling hyperthreading makes it run FASTER. Is this normal?
This depends entirely on use case. A subjective term like normal has a lot of leeway! There are use cases where Hyper-Threading (HT) makes sense, and cases where it will have a performance impact.
One such case of performance decrease is for applications making heavy use of AVX instructions. The AVX instructions are carried out in the vector processing unit(VPU), of which there is one per core in Intel Xeon processors. Additional threads will block when trying to access the VPU if it is not available, leading to no performance improvement with the use of HT.
If you have say, 4 cores with HT, allowing you to run 8 threads, you will only actually be able to run 4 VPU instructions at a time - so your other 4 threads will be blocked as they complete. The additional overhead of the blocking and scheduling will usually net you a lower throughput than if you were running 4 threads on 4 cores, with HT disabled.
Likewise, running just 4 threads on the 8 cores, the OS scheduler can schedule the threads to run on any physical core - so there may still be a chance where one thread blocks waiting for another to complete. Some newer applications and job schedulers can now coordinate with the OS to "pin" threads on physical cores, allowing HT to be enabled, but not to oversubscribe the amount of threads that are running on a core. Over time this will probably get better, but does require awareness on the developer's part.
For more general purpose use cases, like a generic server handling many types of workloads, the advantage of HT running additional threads in a single core it usually a performance gain.
I feel my question is quite basic, but I couldn't find any related SO question.
I need to run a program a few thousands of times (different input each time), and currently it is done by a shell script. The machine runs Ubuntu and has 8 CPUs (as revealed by cat /proc/cpuinfo). Using top I see that only 1 CPU is utilized. In order to speed thing up, I want to utilize all 8 CPUs. I know I can start the program in the background, and then call it again (and indeed top reveals that 2 CPUs are utilized in that case), so I can change my shell script to call the program in groups of 8. My question is, is that a recommended way to utilize all CPUs, or is there another, somewhat 'cleaner' way?
You can use cpu affinity to be explicit about the processor for the processes.
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/setting-processor-affinity-certain-task-or-process.html
However, if each process runs on a cpu (as it should, the kernel will make sure that things are running as efficiently as possible), then just fire n processes off (8 in your case, or make your shell script figure out what n is so your script is a bit more robust, or make it a command line option) and let the kernel do it for you. Each time a process ends, fire off another process until you are done.
Question is overly vague.
That you want to use all the CPUs implies you want the end result as quickly as possible - but a major concern for the performance f multiple instances would be contention for resources (reducing performance) and caching (improving performance).
Usually splitting the job amongst multiple processes will usually yield results faster. And there are many, many ways of sharding the workload. But without knowing a lot more about what it is doing it is difficult to recommend a particular approach.
Given that you have 8 CPUs, and assuming that the only constrained resource is the CPU, then you don't want to have more than 8 threads running concurrently on the job. So the problem then becomes how you schedule work to ensure that you are using the 8 cores optimally. Splitting the work into 8 scripts and running them concurrently you will initially see all 8 scripts running concurrently - but its very likely, depending on the nature of the work, that the scripts will finish at different times.
So if you really want to use the hardware optimally, that means running 8 processes as daemons, preferably with each process having a cpu affinity set, fed by a message queue. But is it really worthwhile coding all this if you're not going to be running this regularly? Also it may be faster to run just 7 and keep a CPU for handling the quueue and other demands placed on the box.
Hi I am kind of MPI noob so please bear with me on this one. :)
Say I have an MPI program called foo.c and I run the executable with
mpirun -np 3 ./foo
Now this means the program will be run in parallel using 3 processors (1 process per processor). But since most processors today have more than one core, (take 2 cores per processor say) does this mean the program will be run on 3 cores or 3 processors?
Probably this has to do with my poor understanding of what the difference between a core and a processor really is so if you could also explain a little more that would be helpful.
Thank you.
mpirun will execute a number of "processes" on the machine. The cpu or core where these processes are executed is operating-system dependent.
On a N cpu machines with M cores on each cpu, you have room for N*M processes running at full speed.
But, typically:
If you have multiple cores, each process will run on a separate core
If you ask for more processes than the available core*cpus, everything will run, but with a lower efficiency (yes, you can run multi-process jobs on a single-cpu single-core machine...)
If you are using a queuing system or a preconfigured MPI system for which a list of remote machines exists, the allocation will be distributed on the remote machines.
(Depending of the mpi implementation, there might be some options to force a specific cpu or core, but you should not need to worry about that).
Distribution of processes to cores and processors is handled by the operating system and the MPI implementation. Running on a desktop, the operating system will generally put each process on a different core, potentially redistributing processes during run-time. In larger systems such a s a supercomputer or a cluster, the distribution is handled by resource managers such as SLURM. However this happens, one or multiple processes will be assigned to each core.
Regarding hardware, a core can run only a single process at a time. Technologies such as hyper-threading allows multiple processes to share the resources of a single core. There are cases where two or more processes per core is optimal. For instance, if a processes is doing a large amount of file I/O another may take its place and do computation while the first is hung on a read or write.
In short, give MPI the number of processes you want to execute. Distribution of these processes is then handled transparent to the user. The number of processes that you use should be determined by requirements of the application (powers of 2, number of files to be read), the number of cores available, and the optimal number of processes per core for the application.
The OS Scheduler will try to optimally allocate separate cores to your parallel application's processes in a multi core system OR to separate processors in multi processor system.
The interesting case is a multi-core multi cpu system. Again you can let the OS Scheduler do it for you , OR you can enforce the ( logical/physical) core affinity to your processes to bind them to a particular core.
The mpirun command uses a hostlist. If don't specify it, it will probably use "localhost" and run all your processes there. If you run 3 processes and you have a 4 core machine, you probably get good speedup because the OS will generally put them on different cores. If you only have two cores, then one core will get two processes.
The previous is not entirely true, since the OS is allowed to move processes, so you may want to use numactl to bind them to a core.
If you are on a multi-node cluster, then a well-setup mpi will generate a hostfile where each node appears as many times as it has cores. So on a 4 node cluster with 8 cores per node, you can request up to 32 processes and expect close to perfect speedup. (If your code and your algorithm allow that, of course.) Requesting 9 processes on that cluster may put 8 on one node and the 9th on another, which is of course not great for performance. You'd hope that your cluster software comes with an mpirun that spreads the processes out better than that.
from performance view of MPI job,there are some explicit rule:
1) if you code is pure MPI code (BLAS is not tuned with openMP), turn off hyperthread and set the tasks number of job per node to the cores of node
2) if you code is MPI+openMP, you can set PPN (processes per node) to the cores of node and OMP_NUM_THEADS to the 2(if there are two hardware threads per core)
3) if you code is MPI+openMP and you cluster is huge then you can set PPN (processes per node) to 1 and OMP_NUM_THEADS to the logical CPU numbers to save the communication overhead
In order to provide a useful framework I would consider this hierarchy:
a motherboard can hold one or more chips/dice;
a chip/die can contain one or more cores (independent CPUs);
a CPU can work out one or more threads concurrently (the multithreading I know of consists of two threads)
In the early days, you had most often one motherboard with one chip with one CPU running one thread. Only one process at a time could be dealt with, and the attending hardware set was referred to as the processor. There was was one-to-one mapping between pieces of software (the task to run) and pieces of hardware (the device to run the task).
Process is definitely a software notion. 'Thread' is, cast quite simply, a specification of 'process' in the context of parallel concurrent computing. Nowadays processor can refer to a physical device as well as its extended processing capabilities (multithreading again, which to be sure is a technological implementation). For example, you can have machines with two chips on the motherboard, with four core/CPUs per chip, and with each core/CPUs running two threads concurrently. Then you would be able to run 2x4x2=16 processes (without oversubscription of resources, of courses).
The MPI syntax you quote addresses processes (option np), or threads if you like. The description part of man mpirun even refers to processes as 'slots' (for example, see the specs for the hostfile).
Slots indicate how many processes can potentially execute on a node.
This usage sounds like a legacy of that close correspondence between units of hardware and units of software that was standard back then. 'Slot' is originally a material/hardware feature, not unlike the term 'socket' that has undergone a similar change of semantics at times.
So indeed I feel quite some sympathy for your confusion. If you are a Linux user, you can visualize the report of cat /proc/cpuinfo. These lines refer to one processor named '2' out of four:
processor : 2
...
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 2
cpu cores : 4
They say that in this one machine I have gotten only one chip (since 'phyical id' takes only one value in the whole list, omitted), that this one chip as 4 'cpu cores' and that this one chip is running four siblings (4 threads, so there is no multithreading). In this case there are 4 processing elements, and 4 cpu cores.
In the example above with multithreading, you would see a listing for 16 processors, 2 values for 'physical id' (chips), 'cpu cores' equal to 4 (per chip) and `siblings' equal to 8 (per chip) since multithreading is enabled on that chip. In this case you have four times as many processors as cores.
Therefore, in this extended context, 'processor' indicates the machine's capability to work on a 'process', and this is what MPI and you want to use, regardeless of the number and feats of cores that can enable this. You only need to gain an overview of where these processing capabilities come from.
Another useful Linux command is then lscpu:
...
CPU(s): 4
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-3
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
...
There 'socket' indeed is the physical connection in the motherboard where the chip is plugged into, so it is a byname of chip indeed. Indeed no multithreading here.
I am indebted to the discussions in this other post https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/146051/132913
I have access to a clustered network at my college using PelicanHPC where In run various MPI programs, but at home I want to practice writing/using other MPI programs. Is there a way that I can run MPI programs on my own system?
(I work on Ubuntu Jaunty)
So according to http://idea.uab.es/mcreel/ParallelKnoppix/, on PelicanHPC "The LAM-MPI and OpenMPI implementations of MPI are installed."
I don't know about LAM-MPI, but I know OpenMPI will automatically balance threads across multiple processors, as long as you don't ask for more threads than processors. This means that with a dual-core computer, you can "mpirun -n 2" to your heart's content. However, if you want to "mpirun -n 8" with true parallelism, you'd need 4 dual-core boxes.
This will depend on the MPI runtime you use (you will need the runtime - something like mpich). I guess in any case you can run the program in several processes, but if you run more processes then you have processor cores you will have less parallelism.
I am starting programming on an OpenMPI managed cluster.
I use the following command to run my executable:
mpirun -np 32 file
Now what I understand is that 32 specifies the number of processes that should be created. They may be created on the same processor. Am I right?
I am noticing increasing time for execution with increase in the number of processes. Could the above be a reason for this?
How do I find out the execution and scheduling policy of the cluster?
Is it correct to assume that typically the cluster I am working on will have many processes running on each node just as they run on my PC.
I would expect your job management system (which is ?) to allocate 1 MPI process per core. But that is a configuration matter and your cluster may not be configured as I expect. Can you see what processes are running on the various cores of your cluster at run time ?
There are many explanations for increasing execution time with increasing numbers of processes, several good ones which include the possibility of one-process-per-core. But multiple processes per core is a potential explanation.
You find out about the policies of your cluster by asking the cluster administrator.
No, I think it is atypical for cluster processors (or cores) to execute multiple MPI processes simultaneously.