[petsc-users] error in calling VecGetArrayf90()

Ethan Coon ecoon at lanl.gov
Wed Jan 5 13:03:48 CST 2011


On all processors, the array you get is indexed:

xx_v(1:(Iend-Istart))

while the Istart and Iend are global indices into the global Vec.

It's only by luck that the values on proc 3 are correct (this code
should probably seg fault as it is accessing memory outside of the
bounds of xx_v).

To access the array, you'll want:

do i=1, (Iend-Istart)
   write(6,*)'check xx_v',i,xx_v(i),myid
enddo

or (better yet) pass it into a subroutine to get the array indexed
correctly, like demonstrated in the example.

Ethan

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 11:23 -0600, Peter Wang wrote:
> Thanks, Satish,
>  
>      The index of the array is modified to i+1:
> !===================
>          do i=Istart,Iend-1
>               write(6,*)'check xx_v',i+1,xx_v(i+1),myid
>          enddo  
> !===================
> 
>     However, only the elements on root process (process 0) and the
> last process (process 3) are corrent, is there any ohter logical
> error?
>  
>  check xx_v           1   3999.9999999999982                0
>  check xx_v           2   3999.9999999999982                0
>  check xx_v           3   3999.9999999999982                0
>  check xx_v           4   3999.9999999999982                0
>  check xx_v           5   3999.9999999999982                0
>  check xx_v           6   3000.0000000000005                0
>  check xx_v           7   3000.0000000000005                0
>  check xx_v           8  2.61360726650019422E-321           1 
>  check xx_v           9  7.90505033345994471E-323           1
>  check xx_v          10  1.69759663277221785E-312           1
>  check xx_v          11  6.16840020108069212E-317           1
>  check xx_v          12  6.16840316547456717E-317           1
>  check xx_v          13  6.16832658529946177E-317           1
>  check xx_v          14  1.99665037664579820E-314           2
>  check xx_v          15  6.19784009071943448E-317           2
>  check xx_v          16  6.20249221284067566E-317           2
>  check xx_v          17  6.20218737433719161E-317           2
>  check xx_v          18  6.18236051996958238E-317           2
>  check xx_v          19  6.16840316547456717E-317           2
>  check xx_v          20  6.18107199676522841E-317           3
>  check xx_v          21   0.0000000000000000                3
>  check xx_v          22   0.0000000000000000                3
>  check xx_v          23   0.0000000000000000                3
>  check xx_v          24   0.0000000000000000                3
>  check xx_v          25   0.0000000000000000                3
> 
> 
>  
> > Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:49:50 -0600
> > From: balay at mcs.anl.gov
> > To: petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov
> > Subject: Re: [petsc-users] error in calling VecGetArrayf90()
> > 
> > The global index starts at Istart - but the array index starts at 1
> [for fortran array]
> > 
> > Satish
> > 
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Peter Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > In last question, the pointer xx_v is local data. However, if
> write them to the monitor or assign them to another array, the value
> is incorrect.
> > > 
> > > The protion of the code to display them on the monitor is like as
> following: 
> > > call MatGetOwnershipRange(A,Istart,Iend,ierr)
> > > call VecGetArrayF90(x,xx_v,ierr) ! Vector x is matched with Matrix
> A in the same communicator
> > > 
> > > write(*,*)xx_v,myid ! write the poiner array together
> > > 
> > > do i=Istart,Iend-1
> > > write(6,*)'check xx_v',i,xx_v(i),myid !write the element of the
> array one by one with local range (Istart to Iend-1)
> > > enddo 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > =========The result is as following: ( the values of the elements
> from 7 to 20 are not correct !!)
> > > 
> > > 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982
> 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 3000.0000000000005
> 3000.0000000000005 0
> > > 
> > > 3000.0000000000009 3000.0000000000009 3000.0000000000009
> 2000.0000000000011 2000.0000000000011 2000.0000000000000 1
> > > 
> > > 2000.0000000000009 2000.0000000000009 1000.0000000000003
> 1000.0000000000003 1000.0000000000003 999.99999999999989 2
> > > 
> > > 1000.0000000000000 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000
> 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3
> > > 
> > > 
> > > check xx_v 0 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 0
> > > check xx_v 1 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 0
> > > check xx_v 2 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 0
> > > check xx_v 3 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 0
> > > check xx_v 4 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 0
> > > check xx_v 5 3999.9999999999982 3999.9999999999982 0
> > > check xx_v 6 3000.0000000000005 3000.0000000000005 0
> > > check xx_v 7 1.99665037664579820E-314 1.99665037664579820E-314 1
> > > check xx_v 8 2.61360726650019422E-321 2.61360726650019422E-321 1
> > > check xx_v 9 7.90505033345994471E-323 7.90505033345994471E-323 1
> > > check xx_v 10 1.69759663277221785E-312 1.69759663277221785E-312 1
> > > check xx_v 11 6.16846344148335980E-317 6.16846344148335980E-317 1
> > > check xx_v 12 6.16846640587723485E-317 6.16846640587723485E-317 1
> > > check xx_v 13 6.16838982570212945E-317 6.16838982570212945E-317 2
> > > check xx_v 14 1.99665037664579820E-314 1.99665037664579820E-314 2
> > > check xx_v 15 6.19790333112210216E-317 6.19790333112210216E-317 2
> > > check xx_v 16 6.20255545324334334E-317 6.20255545324334334E-317 2
> > > check xx_v 17 6.20225061473985929E-317 6.20225061473985929E-317 2
> > > check xx_v 18 6.18242376037225006E-317 6.18242376037225006E-317 2
> > > check xx_v 19 6.16846640587723485E-317 6.16846640587723485E-317 3
> > > check xx_v 20 6.18113523716789609E-317 6.18113523716789609E-317 3
> > > check xx_v 21 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3
> > > check xx_v 22 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3
> > > check xx_v 23 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3
> > > check xx_v 24 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3
> > > 
> > > ======The vector x is :
> > > Process [0]
> > > 4000
> > > 4000
> > > 4000
> > > 4000
> > > 4000
> > > 3000
> > > 3000
> > > Process [1]
> > > 3000
> > > 3000
> > > 3000
> > > 2000
> > > 2000
> > > 2000
> > > Process [2]
> > > 2000
> > > 2000
> > > 1000
> > > 1000
> > > 1000
> > > 1000
> > > Process [3]
> > > 1000
> > > 0
> > > 0
> > > 0
> > > 0
> > > 0
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:50:11 -0600
> > > > From: balay at mcs.anl.gov
> > > > To: petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov
> > > > Subject: Re: [petsc-users] error in calling VecGetArrayf90()
> > > > 
> > > > Did you included "finclude/petscvec.h90" in your code - as the
> example did?
> > > > 
> > > > satish
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am trying to obtain the value of each element of a solution
> Vector by KSPsolve(). 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The variables are defined according the example of ex4f90.F in
> \petsc-3.1-p5\src\snes\examples\tutorials\ as following,
> > > > > 
> > > > > PetscScalar, pointer :: xx_v(:)
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > call KSPSolve(ksp,b,x,ierr)
> > > > > call VecView(x,PETSC_VIEWER_STDOUT_WORLD,ierr)
> > > > > 
> > > > > call VecGetArrayF90(x,xx_v,ierr)
> > > > > call VecRestoreArrayF90(x,xx_v,ierr)
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > But, the error keeps coming out when call
> VecGetArrayF90(x,xx_v,ierr) and call VecRestoreArrayF90(x,xx_v,ierr)
> are not commented off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The error information shows:
> > > > > Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation Violation, probably
> memory access out of range
> > > > > 
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Stack Frames
> ------------------------------------
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: Note: The EXACT line numbers in the stack are
> not available,
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: INSTEAD the line number of the start of the
> function
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: is given.
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: [0] F90Array1dCreate line 52
> src/sys/f90-src/f90_cwrap.c
> > > > > [0]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Error Message
> ------------------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > I checked the code according the example, but cannot see any
> difference to that. Just don't know why the pointer array xx_v doesn't
> work here? Thanks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 

-- 
-------------------------------------
Ethan Coon
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Mathematical Modeling and Analysis
Los Alamos National Laboratory
505-665-8289

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~ecoon/
-------------------------------------



More information about the petsc-users mailing list