I see you are using " 0e667e8fea4aa from December 23rd" - which is old
petsc 'master' snapshot.
1. After your fix for 'bad input file' - do you still get these
valgrind messages?
2. You should be able to easily apply Stefano's potential fix to your
snapshot [without upgrading to latest petsc].
g
Stefano: the stupidity was all mine and had nothing to do with PETSc.
Valgrind helped me track down a memory corruption issue that ultimately was
just about a bad input file to my code (and obviously not enough error
checking for input files!).
The issue is fixed.
Now - I'd like to understand a b
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 1:57 PM Derek Gaston via petsc-users
mailto:petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
It sounds like you already tracked this down... but for completeness here is
what track-origins gives:
==262923== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==262923==at 0x7
Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle ore 23:40 Derek Gaston via petsc-users <
petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov> ha scritto:
> Trying to track down some memory corruption I'm seeing on larger scale
> runs (3.5B+ unknowns).
>
Uhm are you using 32bit indices? is it possible there's integer
overflow somewhere?
Ok - cherrypicked and pushed to maint.
Satish
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Zhang, Junchao via petsc-users wrote:
> Yes, it does. It is a bug.
> --Junchao Zhang
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Balay, Satish
> mailto:ba...@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
> Does maint also need this fix?
>
> Satish
>
> O
Yes, it does. It is a bug.
--Junchao Zhang
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Balay, Satish
mailto:ba...@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
Does maint also need this fix?
Satish
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Stefano Zampini via petsc-users wrote:
> Derek
>
> I have fixed the optimized plan few weeks ago
>
> https://
Does maint also need this fix?
Satish
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Stefano Zampini via petsc-users wrote:
> Derek
>
> I have fixed the optimized plan few weeks ago
>
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/c3caad8634d376283f7053f3b388606b45b3122c
>
> Maybe this will fix your problem too?
>
> Ste
Thanks to Stefano for fixing this bug. His fix is easy to apply (two-line
change) and therefore should be tried first.
--Junchao Zhang
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:02 AM Stefano Zampini
mailto:stefano.zamp...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Derek
I have fixed the optimized plan few weeks ago
https://bitbuc
Hi, Derek,
Try to apply this tiny (but dirty) patch on your version of PETSc to disable
the VecScatterMemcpyPlan optimization to see if it helps.
Thanks.
--Junchao Zhang
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:33 PM Junchao Zhang
mailto:jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
Did you see the warning with small scale
Did you see the warning with small scale runs? Is it possible to provide a
test code?
You mentioned "changing PETSc now would be pretty painful". Is it because it
will affect your performance (but not your code)? If yes, could you try PETSc
master and run you code with or without -vecscatter_t
Trying to track down some memory corruption I'm seeing on larger scale runs
(3.5B+ unknowns). Was able to run Valgrind on it... and I'm seeing quite a
lot of uninitialized value errors coming from ghost updating. Here are
some of the traces:
==87695== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitia
11 matches
Mail list logo
