principle of our approach is to build an external iteration over the Krylov
method and to save the current residual frequently (for example, for each
restart of GMRES). Then after a given number of outer iterations, a minimization
-step is applied on the matrix composed of the save residuals in order to compute
-a better solution and make a new iteration if necessary. We prove that our
-method has the same convergence property than the inner method used. Some
+step is applied on the matrix composed of the saved residuals in order to
+compute a better solution and make a new iteration if necessary. We prove that
+our method has the same convergence property than the inner method used. Some
experiments using up to 16,394 cores show that compared to GMRES our algorithm
can be around 7 times faster.
\end{abstract}
\begin{IEEEkeywords}
-Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; error minimization; PETSc; %à voir...
+Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; residual minimization; PETSc; %à voir...
\end{IEEEkeywords}
\State retrieve error
\State $S_{k~mod~s}=x^k$ \label{algo:store}
\If {$k$ mod $s=0$ {\bf and} error$>\epsilon_{kryl}$}
- \State $R=AS$ \Comment{compute dense matrix}
+ \State $R=AS$ \Comment{compute dense matrix} \label{algo:matrix_mul}
\State Solve least-squares problem $\underset{\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{s}}{min}\|b-R\alpha\|_2$ \label{algo:}
\State $x^k=S\alpha$ \Comment{compute new solution}
\EndIf
required for that: the maximum number of iteration and the threshold to stop the
method.
-To summarize, the important parameters of are:
+To summarize, the important parameters of TSARM are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\epsilon_{kryl}$ the threshold to stop the method of the krylov method
\item $max\_iter_{kryl}$ the maximum number of iterations for the krylov method
\section{Parallelization}
\label{sec:05}
+The parallelisation of TSARM relies on the parallelization of all its
+parts. More precisely, except the least-square step, all the other parts are
+obvious to achieve out in parallel. In order to develop a parallel version of
+our code, we have chosen to use PETSc~\cite{petsc-web-page}. For
+line~\ref{algo:matrix_mul} the matrix-matrix multiplication is implemented and
+efficient since the matrix $A$ is sparse and since the matrix $S$ contains few
+colums in practice. As explained previously, at least two methods seem to be
+interesting to solve the least-square minimization, CGLS and LSQR.
+
+In the following we remind the CGLS algorithm. The LSQR method follows more or
+less the same principle but it take more place, so we briefly explain the parallelization of CGLS which is similar to LSQR.
+
+\begin{algorithm}[t]
+\caption{CGLS}
+\begin{algorithmic}[1]
+ \Input $A$ (matrix), $b$ (right-hand side)
+ \Output $x$ (solution vector)\vspace{0.2cm}
+ \State $r=b-Ax$
+ \State $p=A'r$
+ \State $s=p$
+ \State $g=||s||^2_2$
+ \For {$k=1,2,3,\ldots$ until convergence (g$<\epsilon_{ls}$)} \label{algo2:conv}
+ \State $q=Ap$
+ \State $\alpha=g/||q||^2_2$
+ \State $x=x+alpha*p$
+ \State $r=r-alpha*q$
+ \State $s=A'*r$
+ \State $g_{old}=g$
+ \State $g=||s||^2_2$
+ \State $\beta=g/g_{old}$
+ \EndFor
+\end{algorithmic}
+\label{algo:02}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+
+In each iteration of CGLS, there is two matrix-vector multiplications and some
+classical operations: dots, norm, multiplication and addition on vectors. All
+these operations are easy to implement in PETSc or similar environment.
+
%%%*********************************************************
%%%*********************************************************
\section{Experiments using petsc}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
- \multirow{2}{*}{Matrix name} & Solver / & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{gmres variant} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 stage CGLS} \\
+ \multirow{2}{*}{Matrix name} & Solver / & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM CGLS} \\
\cline{3-6}
& precond & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. \\\hline \hline
-Larger experiments ....
+Larger experiments ....\\
+
+Describe the problems ex15 and ex54
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
- nb. cores & precond & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{gmres variant} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 stage CGLS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 stage LSQR} & best gain \\
+ nb. cores & precond & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM CGLS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM LSQR} & best gain \\
\cline{3-8}
& & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & \\\hline \hline
2,048 & mg & 403.49 & 18,210 & 73.89 & 3,060 & 77.84 & 3,270 & 5.46 \\
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
- nb. cores & threshold & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{gmres variant} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 stage CGLS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 stage LSQR} & best gain \\
+ nb. cores & threshold & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM CGLS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM LSQR} & best gain \\
\cline{3-8}
& & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & \\\hline \hline
2,048 & 8e-5 & 108.88 & 16,560 & 23.06 & 3,630 & 22.79 & 3,630 & 4.77 \\
4,096 & 7e-5 & 160.59 & 22,530 & 35.15 & 5,130 & 29.21 & 4,350 & 5.49 \\
4,096 & 6e-5 & 249.27 & 35,520 & 52.13 & 7,950 & 39.24 & 5,790 & 6.35 \\
8,192 & 6e-5 & 149.54 & 17,280 & 28.68 & 3,810 & 29.05 & 3,990 & 5.21 \\
- 8,192 & 5e-5 & 792.11 & 109,590 & 76.83 & 10,470 & 65.20 & 9,030 & 12.14 \\
+ 8,192 & 5e-5 & 785.04 & 109,590 & 76.07 & 10,470 & 69.42 & 9,030 & 11.30 \\
16,384 & 4e-5 & 718.61 & 86,400 & 98.98 & 10,830 & 131.86 & 14,790 & 7.26 \\
\hline
\label{tab:04}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
+
+
+
+
+
+\begin{table*}
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
+\hline
+
+ nb. cores & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM CGLS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSARM LSQR} & best gain & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{efficiency} \\
+\cline{2-7} \cline{9-11}
+ & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & & GMRES & TS CGLS & TS LSQR\\\hline \hline
+ 512 & 3,969.69 & 33,120 & 709.57 & 5,790 & 622.76 & 5,070 & 6.37 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
+ 1024 & 1,530.06 & 25,860 & 290.95 & 4,830 & 307.71 & 5,070 & 5.25 & 1.30 & 1.21 & 1.01 \\
+ 2048 & 919.62 & 31,470 & 237.52 & 8,040 & 194.22 & 6,510 & 4.73 & 1.08 & .75 & .80\\
+ 4096 & 405.60 & 28,380 & 111.67 & 7,590 & 91.72 & 6,510 & 4.42 & 1.22 & .79 & .84 \\
+ 8192 & 785.04 & 109,590 & 76.07 & 10,470 & 69.42 & 9,030 & 11.30 & .32 & .58 & .56 \\
+
+\hline
+
+\end{tabular}
+\caption{Comparison of FGMRES and 2 stage FGMRES algorithms for ex54 of Petsc (both with the MG preconditioner) with 204,919,225 components on Curie with different number of cores (restart=30, s=12, threshol 5e-5), time is expressed in seconds.}
+\label{tab:05}
+\end{center}
+\end{table*}
+
%%%*********************************************************
%%%*********************************************************
future plan : \\
- study other kinds of matrices, problems, inner solvers\\
+- test the influence of all the parameters\\
- adaptative number of outer iterations to minimize\\
- other methods to minimize the residuals?\\
- implement our solver inside PETSc
