HPCToolkit Evaluation Report
Hans Sherburne,Adam LekoUPC Group
HCS Research LaboratoryUniversity of Florida
Color encoding key:
Blue: Information
Red: Negative note
Green: Positive note
2
Basic Information Name: HPCToolkit Developer: Rice University Current versions:
HPCView: Website:
http://www.hipersoft.rice.edu/hpctoolkit/ Contact:
John Mellor-Crummey ([email protected]) Rob Fowler ([email protected])
3
HPCToolkit Overview HPCToolkit - A suite of tools that aid the programmer in collecting,
organizing, and displaying profile data Consists of
hpcviewer Sorts by any collected metric, from any processes displayed Displays samples at various levels in call hierarchy through “flattening” Allows user to focus in on interesting sections of the program through “zooming”
hpcquick Simplifies process by integrating hpcprof and hpcview
hpcview Creates “browsable” performance databases in html, or for use in hpcviewer
bloop Relate samples to loops, even if significant changes have been made by optimization
hpcprof Relates samples to source lines
hpcrun collects profiles by sampling hardware performance counters
4
Available Metrics in HPCToolkit Metrics, obtained by sampling/profiling
PAPI Hardware counters Any other source for data profiles that can output data in “profile-like input format”
(not tested) Wallclock time (WALLCLK)
However, can’t get PAPI metrics and Wallclock time in a single run Derived metrics
Combination of existing metrics created by specifying a mathematical formula in an XML configuration file.
Source Code Correlation Metrics reflect exclusive time spent in function based on counter overflow events Metrics correlated at the source line level and the loop level Metrics are related back to source code loops (even if code has been significantly
altered by optimization) (“bloop”)
5
Main Window in hpcviewer
6
Testing Notes Used LAM instead of mpich for testing
When MPICH mpirun used with hpcrun, hpcrun complains about a “– p” option, even though it was not given
Needed to reduce size of message in big-message.c because of LAM
Unable to get NBP - LU to run using LAM Major stumbling blocks of hpctoolkit bottleneck
identification Since profile data is not related back to the callsite in the
user’s code, but rather the actual function, it is difficult to determine where in the user’s code the problem lies
Profiling recording wallclock time was glitchy, some profiles contained very little useful information
7
HPCToolkit Overhead All programs executed correctly when instrumented < 20 % overhead on all benchmarks when recording just PAPI_TOT_CYC (default option)
HPCToolkit logging overhead
17%
0%
0%
0%
18%
18%
6%
1%
10%
18%
5%
19%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
CAMEL
NAS LU (8p, W)
NAS LU (32p, B)
PP: Big message
PP: Diffuse procedure
PP: Hot procedure
PP: Intensive server
PP: Ping pong
PP: Random barrier
PP: Small messages
PP: System time
PP: Wrong way
Be
nc
hm
ark
Overhead (instrumented/uninstrumented)
8
Bottleneck Identification Test Suite Testing metric: what did profile data tell us? CAMEL: TOSS-UP
Profile showed work equally distributed across the processes Unable to determine communication costs from PAPI hardware counters
NAS LU: NOT TESTED Unable to get LU benchmark to run successfully using LAM needed to use LAM because could not get MPICH to work with
hpcrun Big message: TOSS-UP
Profiling wallclock time didn’t produce a profile with information in it Cycle count is misleading and doesn’t reveal time spent in
communication
9
Bottleneck Identification Test Suite (2) Diffuse procedure: PASSED
Profile showed large amount of time spent in bottleneck procedure
Time is diffused across processes Hot procedure: PASSED
Profile showed large amount of time spent in bottleneck procedure
Intensive server: TOSS-UP Profile showed large amount of time spent in
waste_time on on one process The other processes show time spent in
functions outside of user code, which is difficult to use for bottleneck identification
Ping pong: TOSS-UP From profile it’s clear that within user code, the
time is spent in two different loops Profile shows time spent in functions outside of
user code, which is difficult to use for bottleneck identification
Random barrier: TOSS-UP Profile shows lots of time spent in
waste_time Profile does not show communication pattern
amongst processes Small messages: TOSS-UP
Profile reveals only one process spends time in Grecv_messages
Profile shows time spent in functions outside of user code, which is difficult to use for bottleneck identification
System time: TOSS-UP Profile show lots of time spent in kill and
execlp It’s difficult to relate this information back to
the call site in waste-time Wrong way: FAIL
Profile does not show communication pattern amongst processes
Profile shows time spent in functions outside of user code, which is difficult to use for bottleneck identification
10
General Comments Good notes
The components of HPCToolkit work well for sequential code. Have access to available (native event) PAPI counters on the system. Can derive new metrics from sampled metrics using hpcview Data is correlated with source code
Things that could use improvement Only simple display of profiled metrics and source code correlation is provided Whether a metric should be created, hidden, or shown in hpcviewer must be specified
before it is run Collection of multiple metrics may require multiple runs Parallel code may be difficult to analyze
Different methods for launching parallel programs achieve varying levels of ease and usefulness with hpcrun
Requires that line mapping information be present in all executables/libraries to be analyzed (“-g” option in many compilers)
The ability to display inclusive time spent at callsites in user code, rather than exclusive time spent in all (library) functions, would increase the usefulness of the tool tremendously
11
Evaluation (1) Available metrics: 2/5
Uses hardware counters only (PAPI) New metrics can be derived from existing ones No statistics regarding communication are provided
Cost: 5/5 HPCToolkit is freely available
Documentation quality: 2.5/5 Documentation is in the form of a ppt presentation, and man pages One comprehensive user manual would be helpful
Extensibility: 3.5/5 HPCToolkit source code is freely available No tracing support Very good source code correlation Requires the use of PAPI for hpcrun (profile creation)
Filtering and aggregation: 3.25/5 User can add and hide columns Filtering requires manual editing and can only be done on a per-node basis
12
Evaluation (2) Hardware support: 2/5
64-bit Linux (Opteron and Itanium) w/PAPI, IRIX, AlphaServer (Tru64)
Heterogeneity support: 0/5 (not supported) Installation:4/5
Installation on Linux platform not bad Requires PAPI to be installed
Interoperability: 3/5 Profile data stored in XML format Works with SGI’s ssrun and Compaq’s uprofile
Learning curve: 3.5/5 The interface is fairly intuitive, but takes some use to get comfortable with the notion of “flattening” The separation of the tools for platform support causes increase user overhead
Manual overhead: 4/5 Default instrumentation (only option available) has the same effect as instrumenting all functions, loops, MPI calls, and
function calls It is fairly straightforward to measure at the source line and loop level It is not possible to turn on and off sampling for selected parts of the source code Specifying derived functions in XML is awkward
Measurement accuracy: 2/5 CAMEL overhead: 17% Overhead is less than 20% when recording a single PAPI hardware counter
13
Evaluation (3) Multiple executions: 3/5
Comparison of metrics from multiple runs is possible There is not built-in scalability or optimization comparison, but one can be created using MathML
expressions Multiple analyses & views: 2/5
A single view of profile data correlated with source code is provided Only profile data (not trace data) is viewable Comparison and ordering of hardware counter values is the only form of analysis
Performance bottleneck identification: 1/5 All metrics can be sorted in increasing or decreasing order “Flattening” approach increases ease of comparison some Bottleneck identification requires significant user insight when selecting which hardware counters to use,
and in locating points for improvement MPI time sometimes not attributed to MPI callsites (instead was attributed to internal LAM MPI routines) Seems better suited to sequential programs
Profiling/tracing support: 2.5/5 Only profiling is supported Hardware counters must be used Profiling is done on source line, and loop level Communication profiling is not available Data from routines inside third-party libraries can be recorded
14
Evaluation (4) Response time: 2.5/5
Data is not available in HPCToolkit until after execution completes and performance data is processed
Searching: 0/5 (not supported) Software support: 4/5
Supports sequential and parallel programs Difficulty running with MPICH, though it is mentioned in tutorial presentation Profile information will show up for all binaries with debugging information
present Source code correlation: 5/5
Source code correlation of profile data is the main view offered System stability: 4/5
Hpcviewer works well Did not work well with MPICH
Technical support: 4/5 Received timely & helpful response from developers
15
References
1. HPCToolkit website http://www.hipersoft.rice.edu/hpctoolkit/
2. HPCToolkit SC Tutorial Presenation http://www.hipersoft.rice.edu/hpctoolkit/sc04/index.html
Top Related