That second argument is incorrect - it should be ORTE_PROC_IS_APP (note no !). The problem is that orte-checkpoint is a tool, and so it isn't a daemon - but it is also not an app.
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> wrote: > Good to know that it does not make any sense. So it not just me. > > Looking at the call chain I can see > > orte_snapc_base_select(ORTE_PROC_IS_HNP, !ORTE_PROC_IS_DAEMON); > > and the second parameter is used to decide if it is an app or not: > > int orte_snapc_base_select(bool seed, bool app) in > orte/mca/snapc/base/snapc_base_select.c > > and if it is true the code with the barrier is used. > > In orte/mca/snapc/base/snapc_base_select.c there is also following > comment: > > /* XXX -- TODO -- framework_subsytem -- this shouldn't be necessary once the > framework system is in place */ > > Is this something which needs to be changed and which might be the cause > for this problem? > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:27:32AM -0800, Ralph Castain wrote: >> That doesn't make any sense - I can't imagine a reason for orte-checkpoint >> itself to be running a barrier. I wonder if it is selecting the wrong >> component in snapc? >> >> As for the patch, that isn't going to work. The collective id has to be >> *globally* unique, which means that only orterun can issue a new one. So you >> have to get thru orte_init before you can request one as it requires a >> communication. >> >> However, like I said, it makes no sense for orte-checkpoint to do a barrier >> as it is a singleton - there is nothing for it to "barrier" with. >> >> On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> wrote: >> >>> I think I still do not really understand how it works. >>> >>> The barrier on which orte-checkpoint is currently hanging is in >>> app_coord_init(). You are also saying that orte-checkpoint >>> should not be calling a barrier. The backtrace of the point where it >>> is hanging now looks like: >>> >>> #0 0x00007ffff69befa0 in __nanosleep_nocancel () at >>> ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:81 >>> #1 0x00007ffff7b45712 in app_coord_init () at >>> ../../../../../orte/mca/snapc/full/snapc_full_app.c:208 >>> #2 0x00007ffff7b3a5ce in orte_snapc_full_module_init (seed=false, >>> app=true) at ../../../../../orte/mca/snapc/full/snapc_full_module.c:207 >>> #3 0x00007ffff7b375de in orte_snapc_base_select (seed=false, app=true) at >>> ../../../../orte/mca/snapc/base/snapc_base_select.c:96 >>> #4 0x00007ffff7a9884a in orte_ess_base_tool_setup () at >>> ../../../../orte/mca/ess/base/ess_base_std_tool.c:192 >>> #5 0x00007ffff7a9fe85 in rte_init () at >>> ../../../../../orte/mca/ess/tool/ess_tool_module.c:83 >>> #6 0x00007ffff7a4647f in orte_init (pargc=0x7fffffffd94c, >>> pargv=0x7fffffffd940, flags=8) at ../../orte/runtime/orte_init.c:158 >>> #7 0x0000000000402859 in ckpt_init (argc=51, argv=0x7fffffffda78) at >>> ../../../../orte/tools/orte-checkpoint/orte-checkpoint.c:610 >>> #8 0x0000000000401d7a in main (argc=51, argv=0x7fffffffda78) at >>> ../../../../orte/tools/orte-checkpoint/orte-checkpoint.c:245 >>> >>> Maybe I am doing something completely wrong. I am currently >>> running 'orterun -np 2 test-programm'. >>> >>> In another terminal I am starting orte-checkpoint with the PID of >>> orterun and the barrier in app_coord_init() is just before it tries >>> to communicate with orterun. Is this the correct setup? >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:33:59PM -0600, Josh Hursey wrote: >>>> If it is the application, then there is probably a barrier in the >>>> app_coord_init() to make sure all the applications are up and running. >>>> After this point then the global coordinator knows that the application can >>>> be checkpointed. >>>> >>>> I don't think orte-checkpoint should be calling a barrier - from what I >>>> recall. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it orte-checkpoint that is hanging, or the app you are trying to >>>>> checkpoint? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your help. I tried initializing the barrier correctly (see >>>>> attached patch) but now, instead of crashing, it just hangs on the >>>>> barrier while running orte-checkpoint >>>>> >>>>> [dcbz:20150] [[41665,0],0] grpcomm:bad entering barrier >>>>> [dcbz:20150] [[41665,0],0] ACTIVATING GRCPCOMM OP 0 at >>>>> ../../../../../orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c:206 >>>>> >>>>> #0 0x00007ffff69befa0 in __nanosleep_nocancel () at >>>>> ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:81 >>>>> #1 0x00007ffff7b456ba in app_coord_init () at >>>>> ../../../../../orte/mca/snapc/full/snapc_full_app.c:207 >>>>> #2 0x00007ffff7b3a582 in orte_snapc_full_module_init (seed=false, >>>>> app=true) at ../../../../../orte/mca/snapc/full/snapc_full_module.c:207 >>>>> >>>>> it hangs looping at ORTE_WAIT_FOR_COMPLETION(coll->active); >>>>> >>>>> I do not understand on what the barrier here is actually waiting for. >>>>> Where >>>>> do I need to look to find the place the barrier is waiting for? >>>>> >>>>> I also tried initializing the collective id's in >>>>> orte/mca/plm/base/plm_base_launch_support.c but that code is never >>>>> used running the orte-checkpoint tool >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I took a look at this, and I'm afraid you have some work to do in the >>>>> orte/mca/snapc code base: >>>>> >>>>> 1. you must use dynamically allocated buffers for rml.send_buffer_nb. See >>>>> r30261 for an example of the changes that need to be made - I did some, >>>>> but >>>>> can't swear to catching them all. It was enough to at least get a proc >>>>> past >>>>> the initial snapc registration >>>>> >>>>> 2. you are reusing collective id's to execute several orte_grpcomm.barrier >>>>> calls - those ids are used elsewhere during MPI_Init. This is not allowed >>>>> - >>>>> a collective id can only be used *once*. What you need to do is go into >>>>> orte/mca/plm/base/plm_base_launch_support.c and (when cr is configured) >>>>> add >>>>> cr-specific collective id's for this purpose. I don't know how many places >>>>> in the cr code create their own barriers, but they each need a collective >>>>> id. >>>>> >>>>> If you prefer and have the time, you are welcome to extend the collective >>>>> code to allow id reuse. This would require that each daemon and app >>>>> "reset" >>>>> the collective fields when a collective is declared complete. It isn't >>>>> that >>>>> hard to do - just never had a reason to do it. I can take a shot at it >>>>> when >>>>> time permits (may have some time this weekend) >>>>> >>>>> 3. when you post the non-blocking recv in the snapc/full code, it looks to >>>>> me like you need to block until you get the answer. I don't know where in >>>>> the code flow this is occurring - if you are not in an event, then it is >>>>> okay to block using ORTE_WAIT_FOR_COMPLETION. Look in >>>>> orte/mca/routed/base/routed_base_fns.c starting at line 252 for an >>>>> example. >>>>> >>>>> HTH >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:48:14AM -0800, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am currently trying to understand how callbacks are working. Right now >>>>> I am looking at orte/mca/rml/base/rml_base_receive.c >>>>> orte_rml_base_comm_start() which does >>>>> >>>>> orte_rml.recv_buffer_nb(ORTE_NAME_WILDCARD, >>>>> ORTE_RML_TAG_RML_INFO_UPDATE, >>>>> ORTE_RML_PERSISTENT, >>>>> orte_rml_base_recv, >>>>> NULL); >>>>> >>>>> As far as I understand it orte_rml_base_recv() is the callback function. >>>>> At which point should this function run? When the data is actually >>>>> received? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not precisely. When data is received by the OOB, it pushes the data into >>>>> an event. When that event gets serviced, it calls the >>>>> orte_rml_base_receive >>>>> function which processes the data to find the matching tag, and then uses >>>>> that to execute the callback to the user code. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The same for send_buffer_nb() functions. I do not see the callback >>>>> functions actually running. How can I verify that the callback functions >>>>> are running. Especially for the send case it sounds pretty obvious how >>>>> it should work but I never see the callback function running. At least >>>>> in my setup. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The data is not immediately sent. It gets pushed into an event. When that >>>>> event gets serviced, it calls the orte_oob_base_send function which then >>>>> passes the data to each active OOB component until one of them says it can >>>>> send it. The data is then pushed into another event to get it into the >>>>> event base for that component's active module - when that event gets >>>>> serviced, the data is sent. Once the data is sent, an event is created >>>>> that, when serviced, executes the callback to the user code. >>>>> >>>>> If you aren't seeing callbacks, the most likely cause is that the orte >>>>> progress thread isn't running. Without it, none of this will work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. Running configure without '--with-ft=cr' I can run a program and >>>>> use orte-top. In orterun I can see that the callback is running and >>>>> orte-top displays the retrieved information. I can also see in orte-top >>>>> that the callbacks are working. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I'm rather impressed - I hadn't tested orte-top and didn't >>>>> honestly know if it would work any more! Glad to hear it does :-) >>>>> >>>>> Doing the same with '--with-ft=cr' >>>>> enabled orte-top crashes as well as orte-checkpoint and both (-top and >>>>> -checkpoint) seem to no longer have working callbacks and that is why >>>>> they are probably crashing. So some code which is enabled by >>>>> '--with-ft=cr' >>>>> seems to break callbacks in orte-top as well as in orte-checkpoint. >>>>> orterun handles callbacks no matter if configured with or without >>>>> '--with-ft=cr'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can take a look this weekend - probably something silly >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> <grpcomm.txt>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> de...@open-mpi.org >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> de...@open-mpi.org >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Assistant Professor of Computer Science >>>> University of Wisconsin-La Crosse >>>> http://cs.uwlax.edu/~jjhursey >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> devel mailing list >>>> de...@open-mpi.org >>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>> >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> -- >>> Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> http://lisas.de/~adrian/ >>> QOTD: >>> "I tried buying a goat instead of a lawn tractor; had to return >>> it though. Couldn't figure out a way to connect the snow blower." >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Adrian > > -- > Adrian Reber <adr...@lisas.de> http://lisas.de/~adrian/ > Hempstone's Question: > If you have to travel on the Titanic, why not go first class? > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
