Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

adjust output and parameters in gpu autotuner #5779

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

multitalentloes
Copy link
Contributor

This PR refines the autotuning output a bit.
Additionally it changes the thread-block size used for the lower solve when tuning the upper triangular solve. That fixes confusing output that could make it look like the tuning was making the triangular solve slower when it wasn't.

@multitalentloes multitalentloes changed the title adjust output and threads used for upper solve adjust output and parameters in gpu autotuner Dec 3, 2024
@multitalentloes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jenkins build this please

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Dec 3, 2024

That fixes confusing output that could make it look like the tuning was making the triangular solve slower when it wasn't.

Right. Do you have an example of before/after this change?

@multitalentloes
Copy link
Contributor Author

multitalentloes commented Dec 4, 2024

Here is an example from before and after, though the actual numbers are not comparable since they are run on different hardware

Before:

Kernel computing a lower triangular solve for a level set: Tuned Blocksize: 64 (fastest runtime: 5.481018).
Kernel computing an upper triangular solve for a level set: Tuned Blocksize: 64 (fastest runtime: 12.579492).

After:

[Kernel tuning completed] (in DILU apply) Triangular lower solve: Tuned Blocksize = 64, Fastest Runtime = 4.10624ms.
[Kernel tuning completed] (in DILU apply) Triangular upper solve: Tuned Blocksize = 64, Fastest Runtime = 4.073472ms.

Before the fix, the upper solve did not use the best parameter for the lower solve, causing the runtime shown to be higher than what it will actually be when using the parameters we found. This makes it look like the tuning of the upper solve made it worse.

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Dec 4, 2024

Here is an example from before and after, though the actual numbers are not comparable since they are run on different hardware

Oooh, that's certainly an improvement. From purely a user point of view I'd be very happy to have this in the master branch, but I'll defer to others (@kjetilly?) to review the technical details here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants