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

Define a beltrami CPU baseline #70

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Define a beltrami CPU baseline #70

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

johnmauff
Copy link
Collaborator

@johnmauff johnmauff commented Jul 18, 2024

This PR adds a CPU-based Beltrami baseline to verify against future code modifications.

fix #56

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 32.62%. Comparing base (6e2fd8e) to head (a39bfcf).
Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #70   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   32.62%   32.62%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines       16815    16815           
=======================================
  Hits         5486     5486           
  Misses      11329    11329           

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

@johnmauff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I just realized an issue with this baseline. It was collected on Derecho using 128 threads. When compared with the CI/CD result, it will be different because it ran on a different number of threads resulting in non B4B results.

@sjsprecious
Copy link
Collaborator

I just realized an issue with this baseline. It was collected on Derecho using 128 threads. When compared with the CI/CD result, it will be different because it ran on a different number of threads resulting in non B4B results.

Thanks @johnmauff for pointing out the difference of thread numbers. I think we won't match the numbers B4B anyway because we use Intel compiler on Derecho while the CI workflow uses the GCC compiler. Probably we should target at at certain tolerance level instead?

@cenamiller
Copy link
Collaborator

Can we rename this to a more accessible generic name? Thank you

@cenamiller
Copy link
Collaborator

Actually close this PR and issue a new one to the thermo_asap branch please

@johnmauff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This PR will be closed as it applies to the main branch. Instead, PR #95 is its replacement.

@johnmauff johnmauff closed this Aug 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Beltrami Validation Reference file
3 participants