Skip to content

Add MCA parameters to define the size of memcpy chunks. #6426

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

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

Conversation

bosilca
Copy link
Member

@bosilca bosilca commented Feb 23, 2019

CUDA memcpys are divided in many very small chunks (a fixed size of 128k), leading to terrible performance. To improve performance we need to increase this limit (maybe even remove it), and add support for vector CUDA memcpy support.

Add support for vector copy, allowing the upper level to define
specialized/optimized vector copy functions.

Signed-off-by: George Bosilca bosilca@icl.utk.edu

@ibm-ompi
Copy link

The IBM CI (GNU Compiler) build failed! Please review the log, linked below.

Gist: https://gist.github.com/5727f2c905cac5b1988a2e9002bbb689

@ibm-ompi
Copy link

The IBM CI (XL Compiler) build failed! Please review the log, linked below.

Gist: https://gist.github.com/193695e49cab6e5958b7faed31df0ad0

@bosilca bosilca force-pushed the topic/dynamic_memcpy_chunks branch from 4e53104 to 934ba12 Compare February 23, 2019 01:01
@jsquyres
Copy link
Member

@bosilca Are these extra merge commits a mistake?

Add support for vector copy, allowing the upper level to define
specialized/optimized vector copy functions.

Signed-off-by: George Bosilca <bosilca@icl.utk.edu>
@bosilca bosilca force-pushed the topic/dynamic_memcpy_chunks branch from 1811ead to ff3b07f Compare May 14, 2019 22:06
@ibm-ompi
Copy link

ibm-ompi commented Feb 6, 2020

The IBM CI (GNU/Scale) build failed! Please review the log, linked below.

Gist: https://gist.github.com/fa5ed43a7024677b81f239e56865960a

@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

gpaulsen commented Mar 4, 2020

@bosilca This seems like an important improvement. Do you think this will make v5.0?

@awlauria awlauria added this to the v5.0.0 milestone Mar 27, 2020
@awlauria
Copy link
Contributor

Adding this to 5.0 milestone for tracking. @bosilca if you want this for 5.0, please target getting it in by end of April. Thanks.

@awlauria
Copy link
Contributor

Ping - @bosilca to make 5.0 can you have this merged by April 30th?

@Akshay-Venkatesh Akshay-Venkatesh removed their request for review August 26, 2020 13:27
@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

@bosilca Is this still desirable before v5.0 branches?

@lanl-ompi
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@jsquyres
Copy link
Member

@bosilca This PR now has conflicts. If this PR is still desired, can you fix the conflicts? Thanks!

@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

@bosilca Is this still desired for v5.0? If so, can you please rebase and retest?

@bosilca
Copy link
Member Author

bosilca commented Jan 27, 2021

No time in the near future to complete this work, plus the use case we had disappeared when we delegated all our communication support to UCX. I'll will keep this PR around until I find some time to revisit the topic.

@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

Delayed to v6.0 due to resources.

@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

@Akshay-Venkatesh Can you please take a look at this? (From @jladd-mlnx)

@gpaulsen
Copy link
Member

gpaulsen commented Feb 3, 2021

@bosilca I removed the critical label, based on your comment

@gpaulsen gpaulsen removed this from the v5.0.0 milestone Mar 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants