[petsc-dev] Valgrind defect: memory leak with PetscCommDuplicate?

[Barry Smith]

  If you don't see any memory leaks directly from PETSc routines then it is a problem in OpenMPI. 

  We've found that MPICH seems to have less memory leaks than OpenMPI.

   Barry

> On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Brendan Kochunas <bkochuna at umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi we are trying to clear valgrind defects from our code and presently we are valgrind is reporting memory leaks like the following:
> 
> ==2884==    at 0x4A07EB7: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:296)
> ==2884==    by 0x8519874: set_value.isra.0.part.1 (in /gcc-4.6.1/toolset/openmpi-1.4.3/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.2)
> ==2884==    by 0x8547E4D: PMPI_Attr_put (in /gcc-4.6.1/toolset/openmpi-1.4.3/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.2)
> ==2884==    by 0x113A153: PetscCommDuplicate
> ==2884==    by 0x113BFA3: PetscHeaderCreate_Private
> ==2884==    by 0x129ADC6: MatCreate
> ==2884==    by 0x123C355: MatMPIAIJSetPreallocation_MPIAIJ
> ==2884==    by 0x124DAB4: MatMPIAIJSetPreallocation
> ==2884==    by 0x12549B0: MatSetUp_MPIAIJ
> ==2884==    by 0x1191186: MatSetUp
> ==2884==    by 0x10D9333: matsetup_
> 
> and...
> 
> ==2884==    at 0x4A07EB7: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:296)
> ==2884==    by 0x8519874: set_value.isra.0.part.1 (in /gcc-4.6.1/toolset/openmpi-1.4.3/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.2)
> ==2884==    by 0x8547E4D: PMPI_Attr_put (in /gcc-4.6.1/toolset/openmpi-1.4.3/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.2)
> ==2884==    by 0x113A22D: PetscCommDuplicate
> ==2884==    by 0x113BFA3: PetscHeaderCreate_Private
> ==2884==    by 0x10ED42B: KSPCreate
> ==2884==    by 0x10DA55C: kspcreate_
> 
> Is the development team aware of any memory leaks that may be coming from PetscCommDuplicate as it may be used in the call stack shown above?
> 
> The version of PETSc we are linking with is 3.3 patch 4. And this is built on OpenMPI v. 1.4.3.
> 
> We are trying to determine if the leak is due to
> 1. Our codes usage of PETSc
> 2. The actual PETSc library
> 3. PETSc's usage of MPI
> 3. The OpenMPI library that PETSc was built against
> 
> Any assistance in being able to point to the culprit or suggestions for particular tests (e.g. a PETSc example) worth trying to identify the root issue would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> -Brendan
>