[petsc-dev] MATOP_MAT_MULT

Sat May 9 14:32:22 CDT 2020

Jose

I have just pushed an updated example with the MatMat operation, and I do not see the memory leak. Can you check?

zampins at jasmine:~/petsc$ make -f gmakefile.test test search='mat%' searchin='ex69' PETSC_OPTIONS='-malloc -malloc_dump -malloc_debug' 
/usr/bin/python /home/zampins/petsc/config/gmakegentest.py --petsc-dir=/home/zampins/petsc --petsc-arch=arch-gpu-double-openmp-openblas --testdir=./arch-gpu-double-openmp-openblas/tests
Using MAKEFLAGS: -- PETSC_OPTIONS=-malloc -malloc_dump -malloc_debug searchin=ex69 search=mat%
          CC arch-gpu-double-openmp-openblas/tests/mat/tests/ex69.o
     CLINKER arch-gpu-double-openmp-openblas/tests/mat/tests/ex69
        TEST arch-gpu-double-openmp-openblas/tests/counts/mat_tests-ex69_1.counts
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-0_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-1_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-1test-2_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-0_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-1_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-0_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-0_use_shell-1
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-5_use_shell-0
 ok mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-5_use_shell-1
 ok diff-mat_tests-ex69_1+nsize-2test-2_l-5_use_shell-1

# -------------
#   Summary    
# -------------
# success 48/48 tests (100.0%)
# failed 0/48 tests (0.0%)
# todo 0/48 tests (0.0%)
# skip 0/48 tests (0.0%)
#
# Wall clock time for tests: 58 sec
# Approximate CPU time (not incl. build time): 62.11 sec
#
# Timing summary (actual test time / total CPU time): 
#   mat_tests-ex69_1: 2.30 sec / 62.11 sec

> On May 9, 2020, at 9:28 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> El 9 may 2020, a las 20:00, Stefano Zampini <stefano.zampini at gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Il giorno sab 9 mag 2020 alle ore 19:43 Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
>>> El 9 may 2020, a las 12:45, Stefano Zampini <stefano.zampini at gmail.com> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Jose
>>> 
>>> I have just pushed a test https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/blob/d64c2bc63c8d5d1a8c689f1abc762ae2722bba26/src/mat/tests/ex69.c
>>> See if it fits your framework, and feel free to modify the test to add more checks
>> 
>> Almost good. The following modification of the example fails with -test 1:
>> 
>> 
>> diff --git a/src/mat/tests/ex69.c b/src/mat/tests/ex69.c
>> index e562f1e2e3..2df2c89be1 100644
>> --- a/src/mat/tests/ex69.c
>> +++ b/src/mat/tests/ex69.c
>> @@ -84,6 +84,10 @@ int main(int argc,char **argv)
>>   }
>>   ierr = VecCUDARestoreArray(v,&vv);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>> 
>> +  if (test==1) {
>> +    ierr = MatDenseCUDAGetArray(B,&aa);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>> +    if (aa) SETERRQ(PETSC_COMM_WORLD,PETSC_ERR_USER,"Expected a null pointer");
>> +  }
>> 
>>   /* free work space */
>>   ierr = MatDestroy(&B);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would expect that after MatDenseCUDAResetArray() the pointer is NULL because it was set so in line 60. In the CPU counterpart it works as expected.
>> 
>> Pushed a fix for this, thanks.
>> 
>> Another comment is: in line 60 you have changed MatDenseCUDAPlaceArray() to MatDenseCUDAReplaceArray(). This is ok, but it is strange because MatDenseReplaceArray() does not exist. So the interface is different in GPU vs CPU, but I guess it is necessary here.
>> 
>> I think we do not support calling PlaceArray twice anywhere PETSc. This is why I have added MatDenseCUDAReplaceArray(). If you need support for the CPU case too, I can add it.
> 
> Yes, please. It is better to have the same thing in both cases.
> 
> I am attaching the modified example, now performs a mat-mat product. If I do A*B it works well, but if I replace A with a shell matrix I get a memory leak.
> 
> [ 0]32 bytes VecCUDAAllocateCheck() line 34 in /home/users/proy/copa/jroman/soft/petsc/src/vec/vec/impls/seq/seqcuda/veccuda2.cu
> [ 0]32 bytes VecCUDAAllocateCheck() line 34 in /home/users/proy/copa/jroman/soft/petsc/src/vec/vec/impls/seq/seqcuda/veccuda2.cu
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> Jose
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Il giorno ven 8 mag 2020 alle ore 18:48 Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> ha scritto:
>>> Attached. Run with -test 1 or -test 2
>>> 
>>>> El 8 may 2020, a las 17:14, Stefano Zampini <stefano.zampini at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> Jose
>>>> 
>>>> Just send me a MWE and I’ll fix the case for you
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Stefano
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Stefano
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Stefano
> <ex69.c>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20200509/1a2c664d/attachment-0001.html>