Design and Performance of the MPAS-A Non-hydrostatic atmosphere model Michael Duda1 and Doug Jacobsen2 1National Center for Atmospheric Research*, NESL 2Los Alamos National Laboratories, COSIM *NCAR is funded by the National Science Foundation

WHAT IS the Model for Prediction across scales? A collaboration between NCAR (MMM) and LANL (COSIM) to develop models for climate, regional climate, and NWP applications: MPAS-Atmosphere (NCAR) MPAS-Ocean (LANL) MPAS-Ice (LANL) MPAS framework, infrastructure* (NCAR, LANL) These models use a centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) with a C-grid staggering for their horizontal discretization *The MPAS infrastructure handles general (conformal?) unstructured horizontal grids! Prognostic velocities are velocities normal to cell faces (“edges”) at the point where the edge intersects the arc joining cells on either side from Ringler et al. (2008)

MPAS software architecture Driver layers – The high-level DRIVER calls init, run, finalize methods implemented by the core-independent SUBDRIVER; DRIVER can be replaced by a coupler, and SUBDRIVER can include import and export methods for model state 2. MPAS core – The CORE contains science code that performs the computational work (pre-, post-processing, model time integration, etc.) of MPAS; each core’s implementation lives in a separate sub-directory and is selected at compile-time 3. Infrastructure – The infrastructure provides data types used by the core and the rest of the model infrastructure, communication, I/O, and generic computational operations on CVT meshes such as interpolation Arrows indicate interaction between components of the MPAS architecture

Parallel decomposition The dual mesh of a Voronoi tessellation is a Delaunay triangulation – essentially the connectivity graph of the cells Parallel decomposition of an MPAS mesh then becomes a graph partitioning problem: equally distribute nodes among partitions (give each process equal work) while minimizing the edge cut (minimizing parallel communication) Graph partitioning We use the Metis package for parallel graph decomposition Currently done as a pre-processing step, but could be done “on-line” Metis also handles weighted graph partitioning Given a priori estimates for the computational costs of each grid cell, we can better balance the load among processes

Parallel decomposition (2) Given an assignment of cells to a process, any number of layers of halo (ghost) cells may be added Block of cells owned by a process Cells are stored in a 1d array (2d with vertical dimension, etc.), with halo cells at the end of the array; the order of real cells may be updated to provide better cache re-use Block plus one layer of halo/ghost cells With a complete list of cells stored in a block, adjacent edge and vertex locations can be found; we apply a simple rule to determine ownership of edges and vertices adjacent to real cells in different blocks Block plus two layers of halo/ghost cells

Model infrastructure DDTs: The MPAS infrastructure contains definitions for derived data types domain encapsulates complete state of computational domain for a process block contains model fields, mesh description, and parallel information for a single block field stores single field’s data and metadata on a single block Dimensions, dimension names, allocation status, halo info, pointer to next block for the field, etc. MPAS model core ultimately uses field array component directly from field types dminfo contains MPI communicator and other information used by PARALLELISM parinfo contains information about which cells/edges/vertices in a mesh are in a the halo region, etc.

Model infrastructure I/O: Provides parallel I/O through an API that uses infrastructure DDTs High-level interface for creating “streams” (groups of fields that are read/written at the same time from/to a file) Underlying I/O functionality is provided by CESM’s PIO PARALLELISM: Implements operations on field types needed for parallelism E.g., add halo cells to a block, halo cell update, all-to-all Callable from either serial or parallel code (no-op for serial code) For multiple blocks per process, differences between shared-memory and MPI are hidden OPERATORS: Provides implementations of general operations on CVT meshes Horizontal interpolation via RBFs, 1d spline interpolation Ongoing work to add a generic advection operator for C-grid staggered CVTs

Use of blocks in an MPAS model core Besides blocks themselves, the types within blocks are also joined into linked lists Infrastructure routines can be called with the, e.g., the field from the head of the list, and all blocks for that field can be operated upon The developer of an MPAS core must take care to properly support multiple blocks per process

The MPAS registry The need to support different cores in the MPAS framework suggests that the developer of a core would need to write “copy-and-paste” code to handle aspects of each field such as: Field definition Allocation/deallocation of field structures Halo setup I/O calls

The MPAS Registry MPAS has employed a computer-aided software engineering tool (the “registry”) to isolate the developer of a core from the details of the data structures used inside the framework An idea borrowed from the WRF model (Michalakes (2004)) The Registry is a “data dictionary”: each field has an entry providing meta-data and other attributes (type, dims, I/O streams, etc.) Each MPAS core is paired with its own registry file At compile time, a small C program is first compiled; the program runs, parses registry file, and generates Fortran code Among other things, creates code to allocate, read, and write fields For dynamics-only non-hydrostatic atmosphere model, Registry generates ~23,200 lines of code vs 5100 lines hand-written for dynamics and 23,500 lines hand-written for infrastructure

Role of the registry in coupling The registry can generate more than just Fortran code – anything we’d like it to generate based on registry entries, in fact! Information for meta-data driven couplers Documentation (similar idea to doxygen for generating source-code documentation) The syntax of the MPAS registry files is easily changed or updated Could be extended to permit additional attributes and metadata We’re considering a new format for the registry files to accommodate richer metadata field { name:u dimensions:nVertLevels,nCells units:”m s-1” description:”normal velocity on cell faces” coupled-write:true coupled-read:needed }

60-km mesh, yellowstone and bluefire MPAS-A scalability The full MPAS-A solver (physics+dynamics, no I/O) achieves >75% efficiency down to about 160 owned cells per MPI task MPI tasks Cells per task Speedup Efficiency 16 10240 1.00 100.00% 32 5120 1.97 98.40% 64 2560 3.90 97.49% 128 1280 7.67 95.88% 256 640 14.65 91.57% 512 320 27.56 86.12% 1024 160 48.49 75.77% 2048 80 85.21 66.57% 4096 40 151.43 59.15% MPAS-A scaling 60-km mesh, yellowstone and bluefire MPAS-A scaling – 60-km mesh, yellowstone

MPAS-A scalability Halo communication (“comm”) accounts for a rapidly growing share of the total solver time Physics are currently all column-independent and scale almost perfectly Redundant computation in the halos limit scalability of the dynamics MPAS-A (60-km mesh, yellowstone) timing breakdown Lower bound for the number of ghost cells in two halo layers, Ng, is where No is the number of owned cells No = 80 -> Ng = 76 No = 40 -> Ng = 57

Strategies for minimizing communication costs Aggregate halo exchanges for fields with the same stencil Not currently implemented In MPAS-A, limited areas where we exchange multiple halos at the same time; restructuring of the solver code might help Use one MPI task per shared-memory node, and assign that task as many blocks as there are cores on the node Supported already in the MPAS infrastructure Initial testing underway in MPAS-O and the MPAS shallow water model; block loops parallelized with OpenMP Overlap computation and communication by splitting halo exchanges into a begin phase and an end phase with non-blocking communication Prototype code has been written to do this; looks promising Restructuring of the MPAS-A solver might improve opportunities to take advantage of this option At odds with aggregated halo exchanges?

Summary MPAS is a family of Earth-system component models sharing a common software framework Infrastructure should be general enough for most horizontally unstructured (conformal?) grids Extensive use of derived types enable simple interfaces to infrastructure functionality Besides PIO, we’ve chosen to implement functionality “from scratch” The Registry mechanism in MPAS could be further leveraged for maintenance of metadata and coupling purposes We’re just beginning to experiment with new approaches to minimizing communication costs in the MPAS-A solver Any improvements to infrastructure can be leveraged by all MPAS cores