[gmx-developers] Small hack regarding dihedrals

[MURAT OZTURK]

Are you referring to the pdihs_noener_simd() function?

It seems that there is a "#define SIMD_BONDEDS" instruction that is just
for this job? If I delete that line, does the SIMD functionality go away?
If not, where exactly does the code decide whether to use SIMD functions?
Can I disable SIMD selectively for dihedrals only?

Also, would it be preferable to use 4.6 and disable SIMD, or go back to 4.5
and do the hack over there, performance wise? I understand 4.5 has many
native assembly loops, whereas 4.6 takes advantage of the compiler, so if I
am going to disable SIMD, is it better to use the 4.5 version with native
code?

I am probably going to be locked into 1 or 2 cores with this system, so I
need to squeeze the maximum out of them.

Thanks

Murat


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Berk Hess <hess at kth.se> wrote:

>  But note that in 4.6 with SIMD (SSE/AVX) enablebd, dihedrals mostly
> (when only forces, no energies are needed) get calculated by a special SIMD
> dihedral function. You will need modifiy the conditional such that the
> plain C function always gets called.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Berk
>
>
> On 09/26/2013 08:04 AM, MURAT OZTURK wrote:
>
> Thank you very much. I need to build a toy system to test it, but sounds
> just about right. I might even hard-code the square of threshold to save
> another flop, following your philosophy. A flop is a flop :)
>
>  Again, thank you.
>
>  Murat
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Bogdan Costescu <bcostescu at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:29 PM, MURAT OZTURK <murozturk at ku.edu.tr>
>> wrote:
>> > Is it OK to intorduce the conditional into pdihs(), and bypass even
>> calling
>> > dopdihs() if r_kj  ( as reported by calling dih_angle() ) is less then
>> > threshold?
>>
>>  Yes. It makes sense to abort calculating as soon as you have enough
>> information to make the decision. You can place your test immediately
>> after calling dih_angle(), as it gives you r_jk. The code could look
>> like (based on your own proposal):
>>
>> /* outside of the loop */
>> threshold2 = threshold * threshold;
>>
>> for (i = 0; (i < nbonds); )
>> {
>>   ...
>>   phi = dih_angle(...)
>>   midDist2 = iprod(r_jk, r_jk);
>>   if (midDist2 > threshold2)
>>     continue;
>>   ...
>> }
>>
>> Please note the comparison done on the squares of distances instead of
>> distances, saving some CPU cycles.
>>
>> Good luck!
>> Bogdan
>>  --
>> gmx-developers mailing list
>> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
>> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-developers
>> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
>> www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> gmx-developers mailing list
> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-developers
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-developers/attachments/20130926/51be6c56/attachment.html>