[petsc-users] Problem with DMDAVecGetArrayF90 and DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90
Matthew Knepley
knepley at gmail.com
Sat Apr 19 12:02:04 CDT 2014
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:49 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/4/2014 11:39 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/4/2014 10:55 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:14 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/4/2014 6:48 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:59 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/4/2014 1:17 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2014, at 12:11 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/4/2014 12:10 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:57 PM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/4/2014 3:53 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interface DMDAVecGetArrayF90
>>>>>>>>> Subroutine DMDAVecGetArrayF903(da1, v,d1,ierr)
>>>>>>>>> USE_DM_HIDE
>>>>>>>>> DM_HIDE da1
>>>>>>>>> VEC_HIDE v
>>>>>>>>> PetscScalar,pointer :: d1(:,:,:)
>>>>>>>>> PetscErrorCode ierr
>>>>>>>>> End Subroutine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the d1 is a F90 POINTER. But your subroutine seems to be
>>>>>>>>> treating it as a “plain old Fortran array”?
>>>>>>>>> real(8), intent(inout) :: u(:,:,:),v(:,:,:),w(:,:,:)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So d1 is a pointer, and it's different if I declare it as "plain old
>>>>>> Fortran array"? Because I declare it as a Fortran array and it works w/o
>>>>>> any problem if I only call DMDAVecGetArrayF90 and DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90
>>>>>> with "u".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if I call DMDAVecGetArrayF90 and DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90 with "u",
>>>>>> "v" and "w", error starts to happen. I wonder why...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, supposed I call:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> u_array ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v_array .... etc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now to restore the array, does it matter the sequence they are
>>>>>> restored?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No it should not matter. If it matters that is a sign that memory
>>>>> has been written to incorrectly earlier in the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I have been getting different results on different intel
>>>> compilers. I'm not sure if MPI played a part but I'm only using a single
>>>> processor. In the debug mode, things run without problem. In optimized
>>>> mode, in some cases, the code aborts even doing simple initialization:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_p,p_local,p_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> u_array = 0.d0
>>>>
>>>> v_array = 0.d0
>>>>
>>>> w_array = 0.d0
>>>>
>>>> p_array = 0.d0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_p,p_local,p_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>
>>>> The code aborts at call
>>>> DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr), giving segmentation
>>>> error. But other version of intel compiler passes thru this part w/o error.
>>>> Since the response is different among different compilers, is this PETSc or
>>>> intel 's bug? Or mvapich or openmpi?
>>>
>>>
>>> We do this is a bunch of examples. Can you reproduce this different
>>> behavior in src/dm/examples/tutorials/ex11f90.F?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> Do you mean putting the above lines into ex11f90.F and test?
>>>
>>
>> It already has DMDAVecGetArray(). Just run it.
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It worked. The differences between mine and the code is the way the
>> fortran modules are defined, and the ex11f90 only uses global vectors. Does
>> it make a difference whether global or local vectors are used? Because the
>> way it accesses x1 only touches the local region.
>>
>
> No the global/local difference should not matter.
>
>
>> Also, before using DMDAVecGetArrayF90, DMGetGlobalVector must be used
>> 1st, is that so? I can't find the equivalent for local vector though.
>>
>
> DMGetLocalVector()
>
>
> Ops, I do not have DMGetLocalVector and DMRestoreLocalVector in my code.
> Does it matter?
>
> If so, when should I call them?
>
You just need a local vector from somewhere.
Matt
> Thanks.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>> As in w, then v and u?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also that the beginning and end indices of the u,v,w, are
>>>>>>>>> different for each process see for example
>>>>>>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-3.4/src/dm/examples/tutorials/ex11f90.F (and they do not start at 1). This is how to get the loop bounds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my case, I fixed the u,v,w such that their indices are the same.
>>>>>>>> I also checked using DMDAGetCorners and DMDAGetGhostCorners. Now the
>>>>>>>> problem lies in my subroutine treating it as a “plain old Fortran array”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I declare them as pointers, their indices follow the C 0 start
>>>>>>>> convention, is that so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really. It is that in each process you need to access them
>>>>>>> from the indices indicated by DMDAGetCorners() for global vectors and
>>>>>>> DMDAGetGhostCorners() for local vectors. So really C or Fortran doesn’t
>>>>>>> make any difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So my problem now is that in my old MPI code, the u(i,j,k) follow
>>>>>>>> the Fortran 1 start convention. Is there some way to manipulate such that I
>>>>>>>> do not have to change my u(i,j,k) to u(i-1,j-1,k-1)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you code wishes to access them with indices plus one from the
>>>>>>> values returned by DMDAGetCorners() for global vectors and
>>>>>>> DMDAGetGhostCorners() for local vectors then you need to manually subtract
>>>>>>> off the 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2014, at 10:58 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tried to pinpoint the problem. I reduced my job size and hence
>>>>>>>>>> I can run on 1 processor. Tried using valgrind but perhaps I'm using the
>>>>>>>>>> optimized version, it didn't catch the error, besides saying "Segmentation
>>>>>>>>>> fault (core dumped)"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, by re-writing my code, I found out a few things:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. if I write my code this way:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> u_array = ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v_array = ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> w_array = ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The code runs fine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. if I write my code this way:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call uvw_array_change(u_array,v_array,w_array) -> this subroutine
>>>>>>>>>> does the same modification as the above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr) -> error
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> where the subroutine is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> subroutine uvw_array_change(u,v,w)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real(8), intent(inout) :: u(:,:,:),v(:,:,:),w(:,:,:)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> u ...
>>>>>>>>>> v...
>>>>>>>>>> w ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> end subroutine uvw_array_change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above will give an error at :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Same as above, except I change the order of the last 3 lines
>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So they are now in reversed order. Now it works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Same as 2 or 3, except the subroutine is changed to :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> subroutine uvw_array_change(u,v,w)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real(8), intent(inout) ::
>>>>>>>>>> u(start_indices(1):end_indices(1),start_indices(2):end_indices(2),start_indices(3):end_indices(3))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real(8), intent(inout) ::
>>>>>>>>>> v(start_indices(1):end_indices(1),start_indices(2):end_indices(2),start_indices(3):end_indices(3))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real(8), intent(inout) ::
>>>>>>>>>> w(start_indices(1):end_indices(1),start_indices(2):end_indices(2),start_indices(3):end_indices(3))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> u ...
>>>>>>>>>> v...
>>>>>>>>>> w ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> end subroutine uvw_array_change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The start_indices and end_indices are simply to shift the 0
>>>>>>>>>> indices of C convention to that of the 1 indices of the Fortran convention.
>>>>>>>>>> This is necessary in my case because most of my codes start array counting
>>>>>>>>>> at 1, hence the "trick".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, now no matter which order of the DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90
>>>>>>>>>> (as in 2 or 3), error will occur at "call
>>>>>>>>>> DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr) "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So did I violate and cause memory corruption due to the trick
>>>>>>>>>> above? But I can't think of any way other than the "trick" to continue
>>>>>>>>>> using the 1 indices convention.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/4/2014 8:00 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try running under valgrind
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html#valgrind
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:47 PM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned earlier, the code works fine in PETSc debug mode
>>>>>>>>>>>> but fails in non-debug mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have attached my code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/4/2014 2:26 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send the code that creates da_w and the declarations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of w_array
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:40 AM, TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <zonexo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not too sure how to do it. I'm running mpi. So I run:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpirun -n 4 ./a.out -start_in_debugger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got the msg below. Before the gdb windows appear (thru
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x11), the program aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I tried running in another cluster and it worked. Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried in the current cluster in debug mode and it worked too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpirun -n 4 ./a.out -start_in_debugger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An MPI process has executed an operation involving a call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fork()" system call to create a child process. Open MPI is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating in a condition that could result in memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other system errors; your MPI job may hang, crash, or produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data corruption. The use of fork() (or system() or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create child processes) is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The process that invoked fork was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local host: n12-76 (PID 20235)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_COMM_WORLD rank: 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are *absolutely sure* that your application will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and correctly survive a call to fork(), you may disable this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by setting the mpi_warn_on_fork MCA parameter to 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]PETSC ERROR: PETSC: Attaching gdb to ./a.out of pid 20235
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on display localhost:50.0 on machine n12-76
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]PETSC ERROR: PETSC: Attaching gdb to ./a.out of pid 20233
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on display localhost:50.0 on machine n12-76
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: PETSC: Attaching gdb to ./a.out of pid 20234
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on display localhost:50.0 on machine n12-76
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: PETSC: Attaching gdb to ./a.out of pid 20236
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on display localhost:50.0 on machine n12-76
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [n12-76:20232] 3 more processes have sent help message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help-mpi-runtime.txt / mpi_init:warn-fork
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [n12-76:20232] Set MCA parameter "orte_base_help_aggregate"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0 to see all help / error messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Violation, probably memory access out of range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -on_error_attach_debugger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: or see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html#valgrind[1]PETSCERROR: or try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://valgrind.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on GNU/linux and Apple Mac OS X to find memory corruption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: configure using --with-debugging=yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recompile, link, and run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: to get more information on the crash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]PETSC ERROR: User provided function() line 0 in unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directory unknown file (null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Violation, probably memory access out of range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -on_error_attach_debugger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: or see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html#valgrind[3]PETSCERROR: or try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://valgrind.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on GNU/linux and Apple Mac OS X to find memory corruption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: configure using --with-debugging=yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recompile, link, and run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: to get more information on the crash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]PETSC ERROR: User provided function() line 0 in unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directory unknown file (null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/4/2014 9:05 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because IO doesn’t always get flushed immediately it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be hanging at this point. It is better to use the option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -start_in_debugger then type cont in each debugger window and then when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is “hanging” do a control C in each debugger window and type where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see where each process is you can also look around in the debugger at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variables to see why it is “hanging” at that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This routines don’t have any parallel communication in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them so are unlikely to hang.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 6:52 AM, TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <zonexo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My code hangs and I added in mpi_barrier and print to catch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bug. I found that it hangs after printing "7". Is it because I'm doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong? I need to access the u,v,w array so I use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DMDAVecGetArrayF90. After access, I use DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"3"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"4"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call DMDAVecGetArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"5"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I_IIB_uv_initial_1st_dm(I_cell_no_u1,I_cell_no_v1,I_cell_no_w1,I_cell_u1,I_cell_v1,I_cell_w1,u_array,v_array,w_array)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"6"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_w,w_local,w_array,ierr) !must be in reverse order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"7"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_v,v_local,v_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr); if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (myid==0) print *,"8"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DMDAVecRestoreArrayF90(da_u,u_local,u_array,ierr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAY wee-beng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <code.txt>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
>>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
>>> experiments lead.
>>> -- Norbert Wiener
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
>> experiments lead.
>> -- Norbert Wiener
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
>
>
>
--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20140419/9ae1bb2a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the petsc-users
mailing list