Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix:fix LAMMPS MPI tests with mpi4py 4.0.0 #4032

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 31, 2024

Conversation

njzjz
Copy link
Member

@njzjz njzjz commented Jul 29, 2024

The previous code works with mpi4py<4 but fails with mpi4py 4.0.0. I don't know what breaking change was made.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Optimized potential energy calculation in the LAMMPS simulation by restricting evaluation to the master process, reducing unnecessary computations.
  • Chores

    • Improved control flow for better performance in parallel execution contexts.

Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 29, 2024

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The recent changes optimize the evaluation of potential energy (pe) in the LAMMPS simulation by restricting its calculation to the master process (rank 0). This modification enhances performance by eliminating unnecessary calculations on other ranks, while maintaining the functionality for saving the pe data. This focus on control flow aims to reduce computational overhead and prevent potential variable errors in parallel contexts.

Changes

Files Change Summary
source/lmp/tests/run_mpi_pair_deepmd.py Moved potential energy (pe) evaluation inside the conditional block for rank == 0 to optimize performance.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Master as Rank 0
    participant Workers as Other Ranks
    participant FileSystem as File Operations

    Workers->>Master: Request for potential energy (pe)
    Master->>Master: Calculate potential energy (pe)
    Master->>FileSystem: Save potential energy (pe)
    Master-->>Workers: Notify completion
Loading

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.93%. Comparing base (0e0fc1a) to head (2345a94).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            devel    #4032   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.93%   82.93%           
=======================================
  Files         522      522           
  Lines       51036    51036           
  Branches     3028     3028           
=======================================
+ Hits        42325    42327    +2     
- Misses       7762     7764    +2     
+ Partials      949      945    -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@njzjz
Copy link
Member Author

njzjz commented Jul 29, 2024

I submit to lammps/lammps#4249

@njzjz njzjz added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 31, 2024
Merged via the queue into deepmodeling:devel with commit 1e72236 Jul 31, 2024
60 checks passed
@njzjz njzjz deleted the fix-lmp-mpi-tests branch July 31, 2024 08:33
mtaillefumier pushed a commit to mtaillefumier/deepmd-kit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
The previous code works with mpi4py<4 but fails with mpi4py 4.0.0. I
don't know what breaking change was made.

<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **Bug Fixes**
- Optimized potential energy calculation in the LAMMPS simulation by
restricting evaluation to the master process, reducing unnecessary
computations.

- **Chores**
- Improved control flow for better performance in parallel execution
contexts.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->

Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants