Performance

Trixi.jl is designed to balance performance and readability. Since Julia provides a lot of zero-cost abstractions, it is often possible to optimize both goals simultaneously.

The usual development workflow in Julia is

1. Make it work.
2. Make it nice.
3. Make it fast.

To achieve the third step, you should be familiar with (at least) the section on performance tips in the Julia manual. Here, we just list some important aspects you should consider when developing Trixi.jl.

• Consider using @views/view(...) when using array slices, except on the left-side of an assignment (further details).
• Functions are essentially for free, since they are usually automatically inlined where it makes sense (using @inline can be used as an additional hint to the compiler) (further details).
• Function barriers can improve performance due to type stability (further details).
• Look for type instabilities using @code_warntype. Consider using @descend from Cthulhu.jl to investigate deeper call chains.

Manual benchmarking

If you modify some internal parts of Trixi.jl, you should check the impact on performance. Hence, you should at least investigate the performance roughly by comparing the reported timings of several elixirs. Deeper investigations and micro-benchmarks should usually use BenchmarkTools.jl. For example, the following steps were used to benchmark the changes introduced in PR #256.

1. git checkout e7ebf3846b3fd62ee1d0042e130afb50d7fe8e48 (new version)

2. Start julia --threads=1 --check-bounds=no.

3. Execute the following code in the REPL to benchmark the rhs! call at the final state.

   julia> using BenchmarkTools, Revise; using Trixi
   
   julia> trixi_include("examples/2d/elixir_euler_sedov_blast_wave.jl")
   
   julia> du_test = copy(sol.u[end]); u_test = copy(sol.u[end]);
   
   julia> @benchmark Trixi.rhs!(
             $(du_test),
             $(u_test),
             $(semi),
             $(sol.t[end]))
   BenchmarkTools.Trial:
    memory estimate:  10.48 KiB
    allocs estimate:  67
    --------------
    minimum time:     4.510 ms (0.00% GC)
    median time:      4.646 ms (0.00% GC)
    mean time:        4.699 ms (0.00% GC)
    maximum time:     7.183 ms (0.00% GC)
    --------------
    samples:          1065
    evals/sample:     1
   
   shell> git checkout 222241ff54f8a4ca9876cc1fc25ae262416a4ea0
   
   julia> trixi_include("examples/2d/elixir_euler_sedov_blast_wave.jl")
   
   julia> @benchmark Trixi.rhs!(
             $(du_test),
             $(u_test),
             $(semi),
             $(sol.t[end]))
   BenchmarkTools.Trial:
    memory estimate:  10.36 KiB
    allocs estimate:  67
    --------------
    minimum time:     4.500 ms (0.00% GC)
    median time:      4.635 ms (0.00% GC)
    mean time:        4.676 ms (0.00% GC)
    maximum time:     5.880 ms (0.00% GC)
    --------------
    samples:          1070
    evals/sample:     1

   Run the @benchmark ... commands multiple times to see whether there are any significant fluctuations.

Follow these steps for both commits you want to compare. The relevant benchmark results you should typically be looking at are the median and mean values of the runtime and the memory/allocs estimate. In this example, the differences of the runtimes are of the order of the fluctuations one gets when running the benchmarks multiple times. Since the memory/allocs are (roughly) the same, there doesn't seem to be a significant performance regression here.

You can also make it more detailed by benchmarking only, e.g., the calculation of the volume terms, but whether that's necessary depends on the modifications you made and their (potential) impact.

Some more detailed description of manual profiling and benchmarking as well as resulting performance improvements of Trixi.jl are given in the following blog posts.

• Improving performance of AMR with p4est, cf. #638
• Improving performance of EC methods, cf. #643

Automated benchmarking

We use PkgBenchmark.jl to provide a standard set of benchmarks for Trixi.jl. The relevant benchmark script is benchmark/benchmarks.jl. To benchmark the changes made in a PR, please proceed as follows:

1. Check out the latest main branch of your Trixi.jl development repository.
2. Check out the latest development branch of your PR.
3. Change your working directory to the benchmark directory of Trixi.jl.
4. Execute julia run_benchmarks.jl.

This will take some hours to complete and requires at least 8 GiB of RAM. When everything is finished, some output files will be created in the benchmark directory of Trixi.jl.

You can also run a standard set of benchmarks manually via

julia> using PkgBenchmark, Trixi

julia> results = benchmarkpkg(Trixi, BenchmarkConfig(juliacmd=`$(Base.julia_cmd()) --check-bounds=no --threads=1`))

julia> export_markdown(pkgdir(Trixi, "benchmark", "single_benchmark.md"), results)

This will save a markdown file with a summary of the benchmark results similar to this example. Note that this will take quite some time. Additional options are described in the docs of PkgBenchmark.jl. A particularly useful option is to specify a BenchmarkConfig including Julia command line options affecting the performance such as disabling bounds-checking and setting the number of threads.

A useful feature when developing Trixi.jl is to compare the performance of Trixi.jl's current state vs. the main branch. This can be achieved by executing

julia> using PkgBenchmark, Trixi

julia> results = judge(Trixi,
             BenchmarkConfig(juliacmd=`$(Base.julia_cmd()) --check-bounds=no --threads=1`), # target
             BenchmarkConfig(juliacmd=`$(Base.julia_cmd()) --check-bounds=no --threads=1`, id="main") # baseline
       )

julia> export_markdown(pkgdir(Trixi, "benchmark", "results.md"), results)

By default, the target is the current state of the repository. Remember that you need to be in a clean state (commit or stash your changes) to run this successfully. You can also run this comparison and an additional one using two threads via

julia> include("benchmark/run_benchmarks.jl")

Then, markdown files including the results are saved in benchmark/. This example result was obtained using a GitHub action for the PR #535. Note that GitHub actions run on in the cloud in a virtual machine. Hence, we do not really have control over it and performance results must be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, significant runtime differences and differences of memory allocations should be robust indicators of performance changes.

Runtime performance vs. latency aka using @nospecialize selectively

Usually, Julia will compile specialized versions of each method, using as much information from the types of function arguments as possible (based on some heuristics). The compiler will generate code that is as efficient as comparable code written in a low-level language such as C or Fortran. However, there are cases where the runtime performance does not really matter but the time needed to compile specializations becomes significant. This is related to latency or the time-to-first-plot problem, well-known in the Julia community. In such a case, it can be useful to remove some burden from the compiler by avoiding specialization on every possible argument types using the macro @nospecialize. A prime example of such a case is pretty printing of structs in the Julia REPL, see the associated PR for further discussions.

As a rule of thumb:

• Do not use @nospecialize in performance-critical parts, in particular not for methods involved in computing Trixi.rhs!.
• Consider using @nospecialize for methods like custom implementations of Base.show.

Performance metrics of the AnalysisCallback

The AnalysisCallback computes two performance indicators that you can use to evaluate the serial and parallel performance of Trixi.jl. They represent measured run times that are normalized by the number of rhs! evaluations and the number of degrees of freedom of the problem setup. The normalization ensures that we can compare different measurements for each type of indicator independent of the number of time steps or mesh size. All indicators have in common that they are still in units of time, thus lower is better for each of them.

Here, the term "degrees of freedom" (DOFs) refers to the number of independent state vectors that are used to represent the numerical solution. For example, if you use a DGSEM-type scheme in 2D on a mesh with 8 elements and with 5-by-5 Gauss-Lobatto nodes in each element (i.e., a polynomial degree of 4), the total number of DOFs would be

\[n_\text{DOFs,DGSEM} = \{\text{number of elements}\} \cdot \{\text{number of nodes per element}\} = 8 \cdot (5 \cdot 5) = 200.\]

In contrast, for a finite volume-type scheme on a mesh with 8 elements, the total number of DOFs would be (independent of the number of spatial dimensions)

\[n_\text{DOFs,FV} = \{\text{number of elements}\} = 8,\]

since for standard finite volume methods you store a single state vector in each element. Note that we specifically count the number of state vectors and not the number of state variables for the DOFs. That is, in the previous example $n_\text{DOFs,FV}$ is equal to 8 independent of whether this is a compressible Euler setup with 5 state variables or a linear scalar advection setup with one state variable.

For each indicator, the measurements are always since the last invocation of the AnalysisCallback. That is, if the analysis callback is called multiple times, the indicators are repeatedly computed and can thus also be used to track the performance over the course of a longer simulation, e.g., to analyze setups with varying performance characteristics. Note that the time spent in the AnalysisCallback itself is always excluded, i.e., the performance measurements are not distorted by potentially expensive solution analysis computations. All other parts of a Trixi.jl simulation are included, however, thus make sure that you disable everything you do not want to be measured (such as I/O callbacks, visualization etc.).

Local, rhs!-only indicator

The local, rhs!-only indicator is computed as

\[\text{time/DOF/rhs!} = \frac{t_\text{\texttt{rhs!}}}{n_\text{DOFs,local} \cdot n_\text{calls,\texttt{rhs!}}},\]

where $t_\text{\texttt{rhs!}}$ is the accumulated time spent in rhs!, $n_\text{DOFs,local}$ is the local number of DOFs (i.e., on the current MPI rank; if doing a serial run, you can just think of this as the number of DOFs), and $n_\text{calls,\texttt{rhs!}}$ is the number of times the rhs! function has been evaluated. Note that for this indicator, we measure only the time spent in rhs!, i.e., by definition all computations outside of rhs! - specifically all other callbacks and the time integration method - are not taken into account.

The local, rhs!-only indicator is usually most useful if you do serial measurements and are interested in the performance of the implementation of your core numerical methods (e.g., when doing performance tuning).

Performance index (PID)

The performance index (PID) is computed as

\[\text{PID} = \frac{t_\text{wall} \cdot n_\text{ranks,MPI}}{n_\text{DOFs,global} \cdot n_\text{calls,\texttt{rhs!}}},\]

where $t_\text{wall}$ is the walltime since the last call to the AnalysisCallback, $n_\text{ranks,MPI}$ is the number of MPI ranks used, $n_\text{DOFs,global}$ is the global number of DOFs (i.e., the sum of DOFs over all MPI ranks; if doing a serial run, you can just think of this as the number of DOFs), and $n_\text{calls,\texttt{rhs!}}$ is the number of times the rhs! function has been evaluated since the last call to the AnalysisCallback. The PID measures everything except the time spent in the AnalysisCallback itself - specifically, all other callbacks and the time integration method itself are included.

The PID is usually most useful if you would like to compare the parallel performance of your code to its serial performance. Specifically, it allows you to evaluate the parallelization overhead of your code by giving you a measure of the resources that are necessary to solve a given simulation setup. In a sense, it mimics the "core hours" metric that is often used by supercomputer centers to measure how many resources a particular compute job requires. It can thus be seen as a proxy for "energy used" and, as an extension, "monetary cost".