[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mpi 1.1.1 released
From: |
Sukanta Basu |
Subject: |
Re: mpi 1.1.1 released |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:07:08 -0500 |
Hi Carlo,
Wow! I am pretty sure you solved the problem! I ran the sample code
(~4000 iterations)... absolutely no sign of memory leak! I am going to
test my MATLES code and send you the good news.
I cannot thank you enough!
Best regards,
Sukanta
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:17 PM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:03, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Jan 2014, at 16:31, Sukanta Basu <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carlo,
>>>
>>> I ran the code for ~100,000 steps. I do not see any leak. I did the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> 1. mkoctfile prova.cc
>>> 2. octave < memory_test.m
>>>
>>> Do you think you are getting closer to resolve this issue?
>>
>> I'm just trying to convert your script to something more portable (i.e.,
>> that I can run on my mac)
>> as on BSD/Darwin there is no simple equivalent of the 'free' command ...
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sukanta
>> c.
>
> Hi Sukanta,
>
> I think I got a clue of what could be the problem:
>
> In order to send/receive arrays what is currently done is to create a derived
> contigous datatype
>
> MPI_Datatype fortvec;
> MPI_Type_contiguous (nitem, TSnd, &fortvec);
> MPI_Type_commit (&fortvec);
>
> Then the array data is sent via
>
> info = MPI_Send (LBNDA1, 1, fortvec, rankrec_ptr[i], tanktag[4],
> comm);
>
> Once the communication is done, the datatype should be cleared with
>
> MPI_Type_free (&fortvec);
>
> but this latter call seems to be missing.
> The leak is very small (1 word per message being sent), but over a long
> number of iterations
> this may be causing (at least part) of the memory usage you reported.
>
> I see two possible fixes:
>
> * add a call to MPI_Type_free for each MPI_Type_commit in the code
> * get rid of the derived datatype and use
>
> MPI_Send (LBNDA1, nitem, TSnd, rankrec_ptr[i], tanktag[4], comm);
>
> instead
>
> The modified version of the package in the attachment implements the latter
> option,
> could you please check whether it works any better for you?
>
> Does anyone see a good reason to prefer the former strategy of creating a
> derived
> contiguous datatype each type an array is sent?
>
> c.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sukanta Basu
Associate Professor
North Carolina State University
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~sbasu5/
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, (continued)
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/03
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/05
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/05
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/06
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/06
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released,
Sukanta Basu <=
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Michael Creel, 2014/01/06
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/06
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Doug Stewart, 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, c., 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Sukanta Basu, 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Doug Stewart, 2014/01/07
- Re: mpi 1.1.1 released, Doug Stewart, 2014/01/07