Rewrite the lulesh problem in hydrodynamics using Chainsaw, a new parallel language.

• Most time-consuming parts (according to profiler)

  • CalcElemShapeFunctionDerivative

    • LagrangeLeapFrog (2640)
    • LagrangeNodal (1252)
    • CalcForceForNodes (1132)
    • CalcVolumeForceForElems (1090)
    • IntegrateStressInElems (523)
    • ~50% CalcElemShapeFunctionDerivative (319)

  • CalcKinematicForElems + CalcElemVolume

    • LagrangeLeapFrog (2640)
    • LagrangeElements (2454)
    • CalcLagrangeElements (1601)
    • ~10% CalcKinematicsForElems (1533)
    • ~2% CalcElemVolume (1302)

• Domain: a collection of vectors, condition variables (time), constants.

  • Mainly consists of a bunch of getters/setters
  • ~700 line constructor (can simply replicate, or some optimizations)

• Communication: everything is done through a 2-d array fieldData.

  • No indication of saving old/new states of the cube
  • Boundary conditions: typical, every node gets a local Domain
  • Need to walk through CommSend and CommRecv since customized

• Next Steps: try to replicate the most time-consuming part FunctionDerivative.

  • Modify original code to just time that part
  • Compare the performance results of original and Chainsaw
  • May require multiple weeks since we need more understanding of Chainsaw

• 'Iterations in Stencil.it': Iterations in Stenil code was correct, but no understanding as to why it is correct.

• 'Object-Oriented': How to translate object oriented code into Chainsaw without adding it all to computation phase?

• 'Time Increment': Working on IT code to test the Time Increment component of the LULESH code.

  • which frame of reference should we be in when coding, MPI + OPENMP or just MPI?

• How to print in an IT program?

• Why does our program execute 20 times when unpartition is specified?