imperative to develop coarse-grain based algorithms to reduce the communications
in the parallel iterative solvers. Two possible solutions consists either in
using asynchronous iterative methods~\cite{ref18} or in using multisplitting
-algorithmss. In this paper, we will reconsider the use of a multisplitting
+algorithms. In this paper, we will reconsider the use of a multisplitting
method. In opposition to traditional multisplitting method that suffer from slow
convergence, as proposed in~\cite{huang1993krylov}, the use of a minimization
-process can drastically improve the convergence.
+process can drastically improve the convergence.\\
%%% AJOUTE************************
%%%*******************************
-In this work we develop a new parallel two-stage algorithm for large-scale clusters. Our objective is to mix between Krylov based iterative methods and the multisplitting method to improve the scalability. In fact Krylov subspace methods are well-known for their good convergence compared to others iterative methods. So our main contribution is to use the multisplitting method which splits the problem to solve into different blocks in order to reduce the large amount of communications and, to implement both inner and outer iterations as Krylov subspace iterations improving the convergence of the multisplitting algorithm.
+\noindent {\bf Contributions:}\\
+In this work we develop a new parallel two-stage algorithm for large-scale clusters. Our objective is to mix between Krylov based iterative methods and the multisplitting method to improve the scalability. In fact Krylov subspace methods are well-known for their good convergence compared to other iterative methods. So our main contribution is to use the multisplitting method which splits the problem to solve into different blocks in order to reduce the large amount of communications and, to implement both inner and outer iterations as Krylov subspace iterations improving the convergence of the multisplitting algorithm.\\
%%%*******************************
%%%*******************************
solved~\cite{o1985multi,ref18}. Furthermore, the splitting of the linear system
among several clusters of processors increases the spectral radius of the
iteration matrix, thereby slowing the convergence. In fact, the larger the
-number of splitting is, the larger the spectral radius is. In this paper, our
+number of splittings is, the larger the spectral radius is. In this paper, our
work is based on the work presented in~\cite{huang1993krylov} to increase the
convergence and improve the scalability of the multisplitting methods.
%%% MODIFIE ***********************
%%%********************************
The advantage of such a Krylov subspace is that we neither need an orthonormal basis nor any synchronization between clusters is necessary to orthogonalize the generated basis. This avoids to perform other synchronizations between the blocks of processors.
+
+The multisplitting method is periodically restarted every $s$ iterations with a new initial guess $\tilde{x}=S\alpha$ which minimizes an error function, in our case it minimizes the residuals $\|b-Ax\|_2$ over the Krylov subspace spanned by vectors of $S$. So $\alpha$ is defined as the solution of the large overdetermined linear system
%%%********************************
%%%********************************
-The multisplitting method is periodically restarted every $s$ iterations with a new initial guess $\tilde{x}=S\alpha$ which minimizes the error function $\|b-Ax\|_2$ over the Krylov subspace spanned by vectors of $S$. So $\alpha$ is defined as the solution of the large overdetermined linear system
\begin{equation}
R\alpha=b,
\label{sec03:eq05}
preconditioners are not scalable when using many cores.
-%%% MODIFIE ***********************
+%%% AJOUTE ************************
%%%********************************
-We have performed some experiments on an infiniband cluster of 3 nodes of Intel Xeon CPU E5620 2.40 GHz and 12 GB of memory. For the GMRES code (alone and in both multisplitting versions) the restart parameter is fixed to 16. The precision of the GMRES version is fixed to 1e-6. For the multisplitting versions, there are two precisions, one for the external solver which is fixed to 1e-6 and another one for the inner solver (GMRES) which is fixed to 1e-10. It should be noted that a high precision is used but we also fixed a maximum number of iterations for each internal step. In practice, we limit the number of iterations in the internal step to 10. So an internal iteration is finished when the precision is reached or when the maximum internal number of iterations is reached. The precision and the maximum number of iterations of CGNR method used by our Krylov multisplitting algorithm are fixed to 1e-25 and 20 respectively. The size of the Krylov subspace basis S is fixed to 10 vectors.
+We have performed some experiments on an infiniband cluster of three Intel Xeon quad-core E5620 CPUs of 2.40 GHz and 12 GB of memory. For the GMRES code (alone and in both multisplitting versions) the restart parameter is fixed to 16. The precision of the GMRES version is fixed to 1e-6. For the multisplitting versions, there are two precisions, one for the external solver which is fixed to 1e-6 and another one for the inner solver (GMRES) which is fixed to 1e-10. It should be noted that a high precision is used but we also fixed a maximum number of iterations for each internal step. In practice, we limit the number of iterations in the internal step to 10. So an internal iteration is finished when the precision is reached or when the maximum internal number of iterations is reached. The precision and the maximum number of iterations of CGNR method used by our Krylov multisplitting algorithm are fixed to 1e-25 and 20 respectively. The size of the Krylov subspace basis $S$ is fixed to 10 vectors.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
- \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{strong_scaling_150x150x150}
-\caption{Number of iterations per second with the same parameters as in Table~\ref{tab1} (weak scaling) with only 2 clusters}
-\label{fig:01}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{strong_scaling_150x150x150}
+\caption{Strong scaling with 3 clusters of cores to solve a 3D Poisson problem of size $150^3$ components}
+\label{fig:001}
+\end{figure}
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}{c}
+\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{weak_scaling_280k} \\ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{weak_scaling_280K}\\
+\end{tabular}
+\caption{Weak scaling with 3 clusters of cores to solve a 3D Poisson problem with approximately 280K components per core}
+\label{fig:002}
\end{figure}
+The experiments are performed on 3 different clusters of cores interconnected by an infiniband network (each cluster is a quad-core CPU). Figures~\ref{fig:001} and~\ref{fig:002} show the scalability performances of GMRES, classical multisplitting and Krylov multisplitting methods: strong and weak scaling are presented respectively. We can remark from these figures that the performances of our Krylov multisplitting method are better than those of GMRES and classical multisplitting methods. In the experiments conducted in this work, our method is about twice faster than the GMRES method and about 9 times faster than the classical multisplitting method. Our multisplitting method uses a minimization step over a Krylov subspace which reduces the number of iterations and accelerates the convergence. We can also remark that the performances of the classical block Jacobi multisplitting method are the worst compared with those of the other two methods. This is why in the following experiments we compare the performances of our Krylov multisplitting method with only those of the GMRES method.
%%%********************************
%%%********************************
+%%% MODIFIE ************************
+%%%*********************************
%Doing many experiments with many cores is not easy and requires to access to a supercomputer with several hours for developing a code and then improving it.
In the following we present some experiments we could achieve out on the Hector
architecture, a UK's high-end computing resource, funded by the UK Research
Councils~\cite{hector}. This is a Cray XE6 supercomputer, equipped with two
16-core AMD Opteron 2.3 GHz and 32 GB of memory. Machines are interconnected
-with a 3D torus.
+with a 3D torus. The different parameters used by the GMRES and the Krylov multisplitting codes are as those previously mentioned.
Table~\ref{tab1} shows the result of the experiments. The first column shows
the size of the 3D Poisson problem. The size is chosen in order to have
the execution time for the GMRES and the Krylov multisplitting codes. The fourth
and the seventh column describe the number of iterations. For the
multisplitting code, the total number of inner iterations is represented in
-brackets. For the GMRES code (alone and in the multisplitting version) the
-restart parameter is fixed to 16. The precision of the GMRES version is fixed to
-1e-6. For the multisplitting, there are two precisions, one for the external
-solver which is fixed to 1e-6 and another one for the inner solver (GMRES) which
-is fixed to 1e-10. It should be noted that a high precision is used but we also
-fixed a maximum number of iterations for each internal step. In practice, we
-limit the number of iterations in the internal step to 10. So an internal iteration is finished
-when the precision is reached or when the maximum internal number of iterations
-is reached. The precision and the maximum number of iterations of CGNR method are fixed to 1e-25 and 20 respectively. The size of the Krylov subspace basis $S$ is fixed to 10 vectors.
+brackets.
+%%%********************************
+%%%********************************
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\end{center}
\end{table}
-
-
-
-
From these experiments, it can be observed that the multisplitting version is
always faster than the GMRES version. The acceleration gain of the
multisplitting version ranges between 4 and 6. It can be noticed that the number of
cores, the number of iterations per second with 4 clusters is approximately
equals to 115. So it is not different from GMRES.
-
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{nb_iter_sec}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure}
-
\noindent {\bf Final remarks:}\\
It should be noted, on the one hand, that the development of a complete new
method usable with any kind of problem is a really long and fastidious task if
inner solver is also not easy because it requires to make link between the inner
solver and the outer one. We plan to do that later with engineers working
specifically on that point. Moreover, we think that it is very important to
-analyze the convergence of this method compared to other method. In this work,
+analyze the convergence of this method compared to other methods. In this work,
we have focused on the description of this method and its performance with a
typical application. Many other investigations are required for this method as explained in the next section.
%%%*******************************
We have tested our multisplitting method to solve the sparse linear system
issued from the discretization of a 3D Poisson problem. We have compared its
performances to the classical GMRES method on a supercomputer composed of 2,048
-to 8,192 cores. The experimental results showed that the multisplitting method is
+up-to 8,192 cores. The experimental results showed that the multisplitting method is
about 4 to 6 times faster than the GMRES method for different sizes of the
problem split into 2 or 4 blocks when using the multisplitting method. Indeed, the
GMRES method has difficulties to scale with many cores while the Krylov
