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

Improve MG PageRank scalability #2038

Merged
merged 85 commits into from
Mar 14, 2022

Conversation

seunghwak
Copy link
Contributor

@seunghwak seunghwak commented Jan 26, 2022

Improve MG PageRank performance & scalability in multi-node many GPU systems

…utation (currently with the temporary mechanism to support stream priorities, eventually, rmm should be updated to support this)
@seunghwak seunghwak added 2 - In Progress improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function DO NOT MERGE Hold off on merging; see PR for details non-breaking Non-breaking change labels Jan 26, 2022
@seunghwak seunghwak added this to the 22.04 milestone Jan 26, 2022
@seunghwak seunghwak self-assigned this Jan 26, 2022
@seunghwak seunghwak requested a review from a team as a code owner January 26, 2022 23:40
@seunghwak seunghwak changed the title [WIP][skip-ci] Improve MG PageRank scalability Improve MG PageRank scalability Mar 9, 2022
@seunghwak seunghwak added 3 - Ready for Review and removed 2 - In Progress DO NOT MERGE Hold off on merging; see PR for details labels Mar 9, 2022
@seunghwak
Copy link
Contributor Author

rerun tests

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 9, 2022

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-22.04@93dba00). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-22.04    #2038   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   73.63%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      154           
  Lines                   ?    10327           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     7604           
  Misses                  ?     2723           
  Partials                ?        0           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 93dba00...a4f6528. Read the comment docs.

major_tmp_buffers.reserve(num_concurrent_loops);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_concurrent_loops; ++i) {
size_t max_size{0};
for (size_t j = i; j < graph_view.get_number_of_local_adj_matrix_partitions();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not do a max_element() here (lines 581-584)? It's more readable and possibly faster. I understand you have a stride, but you can pass a sequence and calculate the stride inside a lambda comparer, etc.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How can I pass a sequence?

Can we do this without using thrust/boost (i.e. without using counting_iterator/transform_iterator).

We can create an additional vector storing a sequence, but then, I am not sure the code will be more readable.

Could you show me the code?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can use counting_iterator/transform_iterator on std::vector<> with thrust::host policy and, say, thrust::reduce() or thrust::maximum_element() but the counter arithmetic can be messy. You're right the resulting code would probably NOT be any more readable.

major_tmp_buffers.reserve(num_concurrent_loops);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_concurrent_loops; ++i) {
size_t max_size{0};
for (size_t j = i; j < graph_view.get_number_of_local_adj_matrix_partitions();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can use counting_iterator/transform_iterator on std::vector<> with thrust::host policy and, say, thrust::reduce() or thrust::maximum_element() but the counter arithmetic can be messy. You're right the resulting code would probably NOT be any more readable.

@ChuckHastings
Copy link
Collaborator

@gpucibot merge

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit 5fe65f6 into rapidsai:branch-22.04 Mar 14, 2022
@seunghwak seunghwak deleted the enh_mg_pagerank2 branch August 11, 2022 23:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants