Just to clarify something: I have been testing with the trunk, NOT the 1.5
branch. I haven't even bothered to look at that code since it was branched.
>From what little I have heard plus what I (and others) have done since the
>branch, I strongly suspect a complete ORTE refresh will be required on that
>branch prior to any release. So I wouldn't personally spend a lot of time
>chasing a problem on that branch.
See if you can replicate it on the trunk - if you can, please let me know as I
am unable to do so.
HTH
Ralph
On Nov 26, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Hi Sylvain
>
> Well, I hate to tell you this, but I cannot reproduce the "bug" even with
> this code in ORTE no matter what value of ORTE_RELAY_DELAY I use. The system
> runs really slow as I increase the delay, but it completes the job just fine.
> I ran jobs across 16 nodes on a slurm machine, 1-4 ppn, a "hello world" app
> that calls MPI_Init immediately upon execution.
>
> So I have to conclude this is a problem in your setup/config. Are you sure
> you didn't --enable-progress-threads?? That is the only way I can recreate
> this behavior.
>
> I plan to modify the relay/message processing method anyway to clean it up.
> But there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the current code.
> Ralph
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>
>> Hi Ralph,
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts. I will look at our configuration and see how it may
>> differ from ours.
>>
>> Here is a patch which helps reproducing the bug even with a small number of
>> nodes.
>>
>> diff -r b622b9e8f1ac orte/orted/orted_comm.c
>> --- a/orte/orted/orted_comm.c Wed Nov 18 09:27:55 2009 +0100
>> +++ b/orte/orted/orted_comm.c Fri Nov 20 14:47:39 2009 +0100
>> @@ -126,6 +126,13 @@
>> ORTE_ERROR_LOG(ret);
>> goto CLEANUP;
>> }
>> + { /* Add delay to reproduce bug */
>> + char * str = getenv("ORTE_RELAY_DELAY");
>> + int sec = str ? atoi(str) : 0;
>> + if (sec) {
>> + sleep(sec);
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> CLEANUP:
>>
>> Just set ORTE_RELAY_DELAY to 1 (second) and you should reproduce the bug.
>>
>> During our experiments, the bug disappeared when we added a delay before
>> calling MPI_Init. So, configurations where processes are launched slowly or
>> take some time before MPI_Init should be immune to this bug.
>>
>> We usually reproduce the bug with one ppn (faster to spawn).
>>
>> Sylvain
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sylvain
>>>
>>> I've spent several hours trying to replicate the behavior you described on
>>> clusters up to a couple of hundred nodes (all running slurm), without
>>> success. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is a configuration
>>> issue as opposed to a code issue.
>>>
>>> I have enclosed the platform file I use below. Could you compare it to your
>>> configuration? I'm wondering if there is something critical about the
>>> config that may be causing the problem (perhaps we have a problem in our
>>> default configuration).
>>>
>>> Also, is there anything else you can tell us about your configuration? How
>>> many ppn triggers it, or do you always get the behavior every time you
>>> launch over a certain number of nodes?
>>>
>>> Meantime, I will look into this further. I am going to introduce a "slow
>>> down" param that will force the situation you encountered - i.e., will
>>> ensure that the relay is still being sent when the daemon receives the
>>> first collective input. We can then use that to try and force replication
>>> of the behavior you are encountering.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> enable_dlopen=no
>>> enable_pty_support=no
>>> with_blcr=no
>>> with_openib=yes
>>> with_memory_manager=no
>>> enable_mem_debug=yes
>>> enable_mem_profile=no
>>> enable_debug_symbols=yes
>>> enable_binaries=yes
>>> with_devel_headers=yes
>>> enable_heterogeneous=no
>>> enable_picky=yes
>>> enable_debug=yes
>>> enable_shared=yes
>>> enable_static=yes
>>> with_slurm=yes
>>> enable_contrib_no_build=libnbc,vt
>>> enable_visibility=yes
>>> enable_memchecker=no
>>> enable_ipv6=no
>>> enable_mpi_f77=no
>>> enable_mpi_f90=no
>>> enable_mpi_cxx=no
>>> enable_mpi_cxx_seek=no
>>> enable_mca_no_build=pml-dr,pml-crcp2,crcp
>>> enable_io_romio=no
>>>
>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Ralph for this precious help.
>>>>>
>>>>> I setup a quick-and-dirty patch basically postponing process_msg (hence
>>>>> daemon_collective) until the launch is done. In process_msg, I therefore
>>>>> requeue a process_msg handler and return.
>>>>
>>>> That is basically the idea I proposed, just done in a slightly different
>>>> place
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this "all-must-be-non-blocking-and-done-through-opal_progress"
>>>>> algorithm, I don't think that blocking calls like the one in
>>>>> daemon_collective should be allowed. This also applies to the blocking
>>>>> one in send_relay. [Well, actually, one is okay, 2 may lead to
>>>>> interlocking.]
>>>>
>>>> Well, that would be problematic - you will find "progressed_wait" used
>>>> repeatedly in the code. Removing them all would take a -lot- of effort and
>>>> a major rewrite. I'm not yet convinced it is required. There may be
>>>> something strange in how you are setup, or your cluster - like I said,
>>>> this is the first report of a problem we have had, and people with much
>>>> bigger slurm clusters have been running this code every day for over a
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have time doing a nicer patch, it would be great and I would be
>>>>> happy to test it. Otherwise, I will try to implement your idea properly
>>>>> next week (with my limited knowledge of orted).
>>>>
>>>> Either way is fine - I'll see if I can get to it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, here is the patch I'm currently testing at large scale :
>>>>>
>>>>> diff -r ec68298b3169 -r b622b9e8f1ac
>>>>> orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c
>>>>> --- a/orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c Mon Nov 09 13:29:16 2009
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> +++ b/orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c Wed Nov 18 09:27:55 2009
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> @@ -687,14 +687,6 @@
>>>>> opal_list_append(&orte_local_jobdata, &jobdat->super);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - /* it may be possible to get here prior to having actually finished
>>>>> processing our
>>>>> - * local launch msg due to the race condition between different
>>>>> nodes and when
>>>>> - * they start their individual procs. Hence, we have to first ensure
>>>>> that we
>>>>> - * -have- finished processing the launch msg, or else we won't know
>>>>> whether
>>>>> - * or not to wait before sending this on
>>>>> - */
>>>>> - ORTE_PROGRESSED_WAIT(jobdat->launch_msg_processed, 0, 1);
>>>>> -
>>>>> /* unpack the collective type */
>>>>> n = 1;
>>>>> if (ORTE_SUCCESS != (rc = opal_dss.unpack(data,
>>>>> &jobdat->collective_type, &n, ORTE_GRPCOMM_COLL_T))) {
>>>>> @@ -894,6 +886,28 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> proc = &mev->sender;
>>>>> buf = mev->buffer;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + jobdat = NULL;
>>>>> + for (item = opal_list_get_first(&orte_local_jobdata);
>>>>> + item != opal_list_get_end(&orte_local_jobdata);
>>>>> + item = opal_list_get_next(item)) {
>>>>> + jobdat = (orte_odls_job_t*)item;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* is this the specified job? */
>>>>> + if (jobdat->jobid == proc->jobid) {
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + if (NULL == jobdat || jobdat->launch_msg_processed != 1) {
>>>>> + /* it may be possible to get here prior to having actually
>>>>> finished processing our
>>>>> + * local launch msg due to the race condition between different
>>>>> nodes and when
>>>>> + * they start their individual procs. Hence, we have to first
>>>>> ensure that we
>>>>> + * -have- finished processing the launch msg. Requeue this event
>>>>> until it is done.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + int tag = &mev->tag;
>>>>> + ORTE_MESSAGE_EVENT(proc, buf, tag, process_msg);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> /* is the sender a local proc, or a daemon relaying the collective? */
>>>>> if (ORTE_PROC_MY_NAME->jobid == proc->jobid) {
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very strange. As I said, we routinely launch jobs spanning several
>>>>>> hundred nodes without problem. You can see the platform files for that
>>>>>> setup in contrib/platform/lanl/tlcc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, it is always possible you are hitting some kind of race
>>>>>> condition we don't hit. In looking at the code, one possibility would be
>>>>>> to make all the communications flow through the daemon cmd processor in
>>>>>> orte/orted_comm.c. This is the way it used to work until I reorganized
>>>>>> the code a year ago for other reasons that never materialized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the daemon collective has to wait until the local launch
>>>>>> cmd has been completely processed so it can know whether or not to wait
>>>>>> for contributions from local procs before sending along the collective
>>>>>> message, so this kinda limits our options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About the only other thing you could do would be to not send the relay
>>>>>> at all until -after- processing the local launch cmd. You can then
>>>>>> remove the "wait" in the daemon collective as you will know how many
>>>>>> local procs are involved, if any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to do it that way and it guarantees it will work. The negative is
>>>>>> that we lose some launch speed as the next nodes in the tree don't get
>>>>>> the launch message until this node finishes launching all its procs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way around that, of course, would be to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. process the launch message, thus extracting the number of any local
>>>>>> procs and setting up all data structures...but do -not- launch the procs
>>>>>> at this time (as this is what takes all the time)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. send the relay - the daemon collective can now proceed without a
>>>>>> "wait" in it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. now launch the local procs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be a fairly simple reorganization of the code in the
>>>>>> orte/mca/odls area. I can do it this weekend if you like, or you can do
>>>>>> it - either way is fine, but if you do it, please contribute it back to
>>>>>> the trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say I use the default settings, i.e. I don't set anything
>>>>>>> "special" at configure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm launching my processes with SLURM (salloc + mpirun).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How did you configure OMPI?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What launch mechanism are you using - ssh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think so, and I'm not doing it explicitely at least. How do I
>>>>>>>>> know ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We routinely launch across thousands of nodes without a problem...I
>>>>>>>>>> have never seen it stick in this fashion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you build and/or are using ORTE threaded by any chance? If so,
>>>>>>>>>> that definitely won't work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently experiencing problems at launch on the 1.5 branch
>>>>>>>>>>> on relatively large number of nodes (at least 80). Some processes
>>>>>>>>>>> are not spawned and orted processes are deadlocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When MPI processes are calling MPI_Init before send_relay is
>>>>>>>>>>> complete, the send_relay function and the daemon_collective
>>>>>>>>>>> function are doing a nice interlock :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the scenario :
>>>>>>>>>>>> send_relay
>>>>>>>>>>> performs the send tree :
>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_rml_oob_send_buffer
>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_rml_oob_send
>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_wait_condition
>>>>>>>>>>> Waiting on completion from send thus calling opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>> But since a collective request arrived from the network, entered :
>>>>>>>>>>>> daemon_collective
>>>>>>>>>>> However, daemon_collective is waiting for the job to be initialized
>>>>>>>>>>> (wait on jobdat->launch_msg_processed) before continuing, thus
>>>>>>>>>>> calling :
>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At this time, the send may complete, but since we will never go
>>>>>>>>>>> back to orte_rml_oob_send, we will never perform the launch
>>>>>>>>>>> (setting jobdat->launch_msg_processed to 1).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I may try to solve the bug (this is quite a top priority problem
>>>>>>>>>>> for me), but maybe people who are more familiar with orted than I
>>>>>>>>>>> am may propose a nice and clean solution ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For those who like real (and complete) gdb stacks, here they are :
>>>>>>>>>>> #0 0x0000003b7fed4f38 in poll () from /lib64/libc.so.6
>>>>>>>>>>> #1 0x00007fd0de5d861a in poll_dispatch (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> arg=0x91a4b0, tv=0x7fff0d977880) at poll.c:167
>>>>>>>>>>> #2 0x00007fd0de5d586f in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:823
>>>>>>>>>>> #3 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>> #4 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>> #5 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x97af50,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b010) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>> #6 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97af20) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>> #7 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230) at
>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>> #8 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>> #9 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>> #10 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>> #11 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x979700,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x9676e0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>> #12 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x9796d0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>> #13 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230) at
>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>> #14 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>> #15 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>> #16 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>> #17 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x97b420,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b4e0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>> #18 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b3f0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>> #19 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230) at
>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>> #20 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>> #21 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>> #22 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>> #23 0x00007fd0dd969a8a in opal_condition_wait (c=0x97b210,
>>>>>>>>>>> m=0x97b1a8) at ../../../../opal/threads/condition.h:99
>>>>>>>>>>> #24 0x00007fd0dd96a4bf in orte_rml_oob_send (peer=0x7fff0d9785a0,
>>>>>>>>>>> iov=0x7fff0d978530, count=1, tag=1, flags=16) at rml_oob_send.c:153
>>>>>>>>>>> #25 0x00007fd0dd96ac4d in orte_rml_oob_send_buffer
>>>>>>>>>>> (peer=0x7fff0d9785a0, buffer=0x7fff0d9786b0, tag=1, flags=0) at
>>>>>>>>>>> rml_oob_send.c:270
>>>>>>>>>>> #26 0x00007fd0de86ed2a in send_relay (buf=0x7fff0d9786b0) at
>>>>>>>>>>> orted/orted_comm.c:127
>>>>>>>>>>> #27 0x00007fd0de86f6de in orte_daemon_cmd_processor (fd=-1,
>>>>>>>>>>> opal_event=1, data=0x965fc0) at orted/orted_comm.c:308
>>>>>>>>>>> #28 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230) at
>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>> #29 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>> flags=0) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>> #30 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=0) at event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>> #31 0x00007fd0de5d5418 in opal_event_dispatch () at event.c:682
>>>>>>>>>>> #32 0x00007fd0de86e339 in orte_daemon (argc=19,
>>>>>>>>>>> argv=0x7fff0d979ca8) at orted/orted_main.c:769
>>>>>>>>>>> #33 0x00000000004008e2 in main (argc=19, argv=0x7fff0d979ca8) at
>>>>>>>>>>> orted.c:62
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
