[petsc-users] Automatically re-solving after MUMPS error

[Matt Landreman]

Hi Barry,
Your suggestion of removing the "if (mumps->CleanUpMUMPS)" in mumps.c did
resolve the problem for me.
Thanks,
-Matt

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>   Matt,
>
>    Please try the following: edit
>
> #undef __FUNCT__
> #define __FUNCT__ "MatDestroy_MUMPS"
> PetscErrorCode MatDestroy_MUMPS(Mat A)
> {
>   Mat_MUMPS      *mumps=(Mat_MUMPS*)A->spptr;
>   PetscErrorCode ierr;
>
>   PetscFunctionBegin;
>   if (mumps->CleanUpMUMPS) {
>
>   Remove this if () test and just always do the lines of clean up code
> after it. Let us know if this resolves the problem?
>
> Thanks
>
>    Barry
>
> This CleanUpMUMPS flag has always be goofy and definitely needs to be
> removed, the only question is if some other changes are needed when it is
> removed.
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Matt,
> >
> >   Yes, you must be right The MatDestroy() on the "partially factored"
> matrix should clean up everything properly but it sounds like it is not.
> I'll look at it right now but I only have a few minutes; if I can't resolve
> it really quickly it may take a day or two.
> >
> >
> >  Barry
> >
> >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Matt Landreman <matt.landreman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Barry,
> >> I tried adding PetscMallocDump after SNESDestroy as you suggested. When
> mumps fails, PetscMallocDump shows a number of mallocs which are absent
> when mumps succeeds, the largest being MatConvertToTriples_mpiaij_mpiaij()
> (line 638 in petsc-3.6.0/src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/mumps/mumps.c).  The total
> memory reported by PetscMallocDump after SNESDestroy is substantially
> (>20x) larger when mumps fails than when mumps succeeds, and this amount
> increases uniformly with each mumps failure.  So I think some of the
> mumps-related structures are not being deallocated by SNESDestroy if mumps
> generates an error.
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Matt Landreman <matt.landreman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> PETSc developers,
> >>>
> >>> I tried implementing a system for automatically increasing MUMPS
> ICNTL(14), along the lines described in this recent thread. If SNESSolve
> returns ierr .ne. 0 due to MUMPS error -9, I call SNESDestroy,
> re-initialize SNES, call MatMumpsSetIcntl with a larger value of ICNTL(14),
> call SNESSolve again, and repeat as needed. The procedure works, but the
> peak memory required (as measured by the HPC system) is 50%-100% higher if
> the MUMPS solve has to be repeated compared to when MUMPS works on the 1st
> try (by starting with a large ICNTL(14)), even though SNESDestroy is called
> in between the attempts. Are there some PETSc or MUMPS structures which
> would not be deallocated immediately by SNESDestroy?  If so, how do I
> deallocate them?
> >>
> >>   They should be all destroyed automatically for you. You can use
> PetscMallocDump() after the SNES is destroyed to verify that all that
> memory is not properly freed.
> >>
> >>   My guess is that your new malloc() with the bigger workspace cannot
> "reuse" the space that was previously freed; so to the OS it looks like you
> are using a lot more space but in terms of physical memory you are not
> using more.
> >>
> >>  Barry
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Matt Landreman
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:47 AM, David Knezevic <
> david.knezevic at akselos.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:30 AM, David Knezevic <
> david.knezevic at akselos.com> wrote:
> >>> In some cases, I get MUMPS error -9, i.e.:
> >>> [2]PETSC ERROR: Error reported by MUMPS in numerical factorization
> phase: INFO(1)=-9, INFO(2)=98927
> >>>
> >>> This is easily fixed by re-running the executable with
> -mat_mumps_icntl_14 on the commandline.
> >>>
> >>> However, I would like to update my code in order to do this
> automatically, i.e. detect the -9 error and re-run with the appropriate
> option. Is there a recommended way to do this? It seems to me that I could
> do this with a PETSc error handler (e.g. PetscPushErrorHandler) in order to
> call a function that sets the appropriate option and solves again, is that
> right? Are there any examples that illustrate this type of thing?
> >>>
> >>> I would not use the error handler. I would just check the ierr return
> code from the solver. I think you need the
> >>> INFO output, for which you can use MatMumpsGetInfo().
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, that sounds good (and much simpler than what I had in mind),
> thanks for the help!
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20151001/74f1925c/attachment-0001.html>