[petsc-users] seg fault with VecGetArray

Sun May 13 19:27:21 CDT 2012

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at gmail.com>wrote:

> on  a somewhat related topic, I recently found I have the CHKERRXX option
> which throws exceptions. This seems to be a better option for me since in
> some some functions with return values I cannot use CHKERRQ/V. If I use
> this, do I need to catch the exception in myself or is it caught by petsc?
>

You catch the exception.

   Matt

> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I'm having a really weird issue here! My code seg faults for certain
>>>> problem size and after using gdb I have been able to pinpoint the problem
>>>> to a VecGetArray call. Here's a series of things I have tried so far
>>>>
>>>> 1) -on_error_attach_debugger -----> unsuccessful; does not launch
>>>> debugger
>>>> 2) -start_in_debugger -------> unsuccessful; does not start debugger
>>>>
>>>
>>> Run with -log_summary. It will tell you what options the program got.
>>> Also, are there errors relating to X? Send
>>> all output to petsc-maint at mcs.anl.gov
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Matt, -log_summary also does not generate any output! I was eventually
>> able to start_in_debugger using xterm. Previously I was trying to start in
>> kdbg. Even with xterm, -on_error_attach_debugger does not start the
>> debugger. In either case, starting the debugger in xterm using
>> -start_in_debugger or attaching the debugger myself manually, I get a
>> segfault at VecGetArray and then the program terminates without any further
>> output.
>>
>>
>>> 3) attaching debugger myself -----> code runs in debugger and seg faults
>>>> when calling VecGetArray
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this a debug build? What dereference is causing the SEGV? Is the Vec
>>> a valid object? It sounds like
>>> it has been corrupted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes; with the -g option. How can I check if Vec is "valid"?
>>
>>  4) using ierr=VecGetArray;CHKERRQ(ierr) ------> PETSc does not produce
>>>> error messages; the code simply seg faults and terminates
>>>> 5) checking the values of ierr inside the debugger ---------> They are
>>>> all 0 up untill the code terminates; I think this means petsc does not
>>>> generate error?
>>>> 6) checking for memory leak with valgrind -----------> All I get are
>>>> leaks from OpenMPI and PetscInitialize and PetscFinalize; I think these are
>>>> just routine and safe?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Should I attach the whole valgrind output here or send it to petsc-maint?
>> I just repeast these two a couple of times!:
>>
>> ==4508== 320 (288 direct, 32 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
>> lost in loss record 2,644 of 2,665
>> ==4508==    at 0x4C2815C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
>> ==4508==    by 0x86417ED: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0x5D4D099: orte_rml_base_comm_start (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-rte.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x8640AD1: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0x5D3AFE6: orte_ess_base_app_setup (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-rte.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x8846E41: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0x5D23A52: orte_init (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-rte.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5A9E806: ??? (in /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.1)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5ABFD7F: PMPI_Init (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.1)
>> ==4508==    by 0x530A90: PetscInitialize(int*, char***, char const*, char
>> const*) (pinit.c:668)
>> ==4508==    by 0x4A4955: PetscSession::PetscSession(int*, char***, char
>> const*, char const*) (utilities.h:17)
>> ==4508==    by 0x4A1DA5: main (main_Test2.cpp:49)
>>
>> ==4508== 74 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2,411 of
>> 2,665
>> ==4508==    at 0x4C2815C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
>> ==4508==    by 0x6F2DDA1: strdup (strdup.c:43)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5F85117: ??? (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-pal.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5F85359: mca_base_param_lookup_string (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-pal.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0xB301869: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0xB2F5126: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0x5F82E17: mca_base_components_open (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-pal.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5ADA6BA: mca_btl_base_open (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.1)
>> ==4508==    by 0xA6A9B93: ???
>> ==4508==    by 0x5F82E17: mca_base_components_open (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-pal.so.0.0.0)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5AE3C88: mca_pml_base_open (in
>> /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.1)
>> ==4508==    by 0x5A9E9E0: ??? (in /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0.0.1)
>>
>>
>> but eventually I get:
>>
>> ==4508== LEAK SUMMARY:
>> ==4508==    definitely lost: 5,949 bytes in 55 blocks
>> ==4508==    indirectly lost: 3,562 bytes in 32 blocks
>> ==4508==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==4508==    still reachable: 181,516 bytes in 2,660 blocks
>> ==4508==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==4508== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not
>> shown.
>> ==4508== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-reachable=y
>>
>> which seems considerable!
>>
>>
>>>  How can we say anything without the valgrind output?
>>>
>>>     Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What else can I try to find the problem? Any recommendation is really
>>>> appreciated!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mohammad
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/20120513/99109f8e/attachment-0001.htm>