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

HDF5 MPI-collective I/O. #309

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

HDF5 MPI-collective I/O. #309

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

1uc
Copy link
Collaborator

@1uc 1uc commented Nov 10, 2023

This PR contains the code required to implement the MPI-collective reader. This will likely later be moved to it's own repository.

@1uc 1uc force-pushed the 1uc/hdf5-collective-reader branch from 248f364 to d6bf8a9 Compare November 13, 2023 16:35
We need the ability to read general hyperslabs into a 2D array.
The point is to split reading of the dataset into a separate function, and then
make `resolve` safe for collective IO (assuming the newly introduced function
is).

The overload for reading a single `nodeID` is removed as it's unused now.
This commit refactors `_readSelection` in such a manner that:
  1. Canonical selections don't require post-read shuffling.
  2. The reading of the dataset is moved to a separate function.

As a consequence, there's no need for an optimization for `std::string`, since
those only mattern when reading from the `"@library"`, which should only happen
indirectly. Hence, we free to ensure that those are always canonical.
This commit introduces the API for an Hdf5Reader. This reader abstracts the
process of opening HDF5 files, and reading an `libsonata.Selection` from a
dataset.

The default reader calls the existing `_readSelection`.
This reader implements MPI-collective reading of datasets.
@1uc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

1uc commented Dec 6, 2023

Has been moved to a separate repo.

@1uc 1uc closed this Dec 6, 2023
WeinaJi pushed a commit to BlueBrain/neurodamus that referenced this pull request Jan 29, 2024
## Context
When using `WholeCell` load-balancing, the access pattern when reading
parameters during synapse creation is extremely poor and is the main
reason why we see long (10+ minutes) periods of severe performance
degradation of our parallel filesystem when running slightly larger
simulations on BB5.

Using Darshan and several PoCs we established that the time required to
read these parameters can be reduced by more than 8x and IOps can be
reduced by over 1000x when using collective MPI-IO. Moreover, the
"waiters" where reduced substantially as well. See BBPBGLIB-1070.

Following those finding we concluded that neurodamus would need to use
collective MPI-IO in the future.

We've implemented most of the required changes directly in libsonata
allowing others to benefit from the same optimizations should the need
arise. See,
BlueBrain/libsonata#309
BlueBrain/libsonata#307

and preparatory work:
BlueBrain/libsonata#315
BlueBrain/libsonata#314
BlueBrain/libsonata#298 

By instrumenting two simulations (SSCX and reduced MMB) we concluded
that neurodamus was almost collective. However, certain attributes where
read in different order on different MPI ranks. Maybe due to salting
hashes differently on different MPI ranks.

## Scope
This PR enables neurodamus to use collective IO for the simulation
described above.

## Testing
<!--
Please add a new test under `tests`. Consider the following cases:

1. If the change is in an independent component (e.g, a new container
type, a parser, etc) a bare unit test should be sufficient. See e.g.
`tests/test_coords.py`
2. If you are fixing or adding components supporting a scientific use
case, affecting node or synapse creation, etc..., which typically rely
on Neuron, tests should set up a simulation using that feature,
instantiate neurodamus, **assess the state**, run the simulation and
check the results are as expected.
    See an example at `tests/test_simulation.py#L66`
-->
We successfully ran the reduced MMB simulation, but since SSCX hasn't
been converted to SONATA, we can't run that simulation.

## Review
* [x] PR description is complete
* [x] Coding style (imports, function length, New functions, classes or
files) are good
* [ ] Unit/Scientific test added
* [ ] Updated Readme, in-code, developer documentation

---------

Co-authored-by: Luc Grosheintz <luc.grosheintz@gmail.ch>
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.

1 participant