[petsc-users] error in calling VecGetArrayf90()

Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Jan 5 13:21:02 CST 2011


  I don't think this is correct. You are suppose to use the local indexing for each process. With the strange index starting at 1 instead of 0.


   Barry


On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Ethan Coon wrote:

> 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