test_configuration_options.F90:l.55
max_msg_length is quite large.... I guess the pow() is a typo.
Cheers,
Fabian


On 11/25/24 09:32, David Scott wrote:
I'll have a look at heaptrack.

The code that I am looking at the moment does not create a mesh. All it does is read a petscrc file.

Thanks,

David

On 25/11/2024 05:27, Jed Brown wrote:
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

You're clearly doing almost all your allocation *not* using PetscMalloc (so not in a Vec or Mat). If you're managing your own mesh yourself, you might be allocating a global amount on each rank, instead of strictly using scalable data structures (i.e., always partitioned).

My favorite tool for understanding memory use is heaptrack.

https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!bM8Vs5Ljq0ZJOl_Zl88PpU1JJWw39UMiu50wgyt0zhG4ax6DxOvabmaDYbKrrCATTeWrKDmDR5C-3bDziLRcXp30NMQ$
David Scott <d.sc...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> writes:

OK.

I had started to wonder if that was the case. I'll do some further
investigation.

Thanks,

David

On 22/11/2024 22:10, Matthew Knepley wrote:
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that
the email is genuine and the content is safe.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 12:57 PM David Scott <d.sc...@epcc.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

     Matt,

     Thanks for the quick response.

     Yes 1) is trivially true.

     With regard to 2), from the SLURM output:
     [0] Maximum memory PetscMalloc()ed 29552 maximum size of entire
     process 4312375296
     [1] Maximum memory PetscMalloc()ed 29552 maximum size of entire
     process 4311990272
     Yes only 29KB was malloced but the total figure was 4GB per process.

     Looking at
      mem0 =    16420864.000000000
      mem0 =    16117760.000000000
      mem1 =    4311490560.0000000
      mem1 =    4311826432.0000000
      mem2 =    4311490560.0000000
      mem2 =    4311826432.0000000
     mem0 is written after PetscInitialize.
     mem1 is written roughly half way through the options being read.
     mem2 is written on completion of the options being read.

     The code does very little other than read configuration options.
     Why is so much memory used?


This is not due to options processing, as that would fall under Petsc
malloc allocations. I believe we are measuring this
using RSS which includes the binary, all shared libraries which are
paged in, and stack/heap allocations. I think you are
seeing the shared libraries come in. You might be able to see all the
libraries that come in using strace.

   Thanks,

      Matt

     I do not understand what is going on and I may have expressed
     myself badly but I do have a problem as I certainly cannot use
     anywhere near 128 processes on a node with 128GB of RAM before I
     get an OOM error. (The code runs successfully on 32 processes but
     not 64.)

     Regards,

     David

     On 22/11/2024 16:53, Matthew Knepley wrote:
     This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
     You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain
     that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
     On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:36 AM David Scott
     <d.sc...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

         Hello,

         I am using the options mechanism of PETSc to configure my CFD
         code. I
         have introduced options describing the size of the domain
         etc. I have
         noticed that this consumes a lot of memory. I have found that
         the amount
         of memory used scales linearly with the number of MPI
         processes used.
         This restricts the number of MPI processes that I can use.


     There are two statements:

     1) The memory scales linearly with P

     2) This uses a lot of memory

     Let's deal with 1) first. This seems to be trivially true. If I
     want every process to have
     access to a given option value, that option value must be in the
     memory of every process.
     The only alternative would be to communicate with some process in
     order to get values.
     Few codes seem to be willing to make this tradeoff, and we do not
     offer it.

     Now 2). Looking at the source, for each option we store
     a PetscOptionItem, which I count
     as having size 37 bytes (12 pointers/ints and a char). However,
     there is data behind every
     pointer, like the name, help text, available values (sometimes),
     I could see it being as large
     as 4K. Suppose it is. If I had 256 options, that would be 1M. Is
     this a large amount of memory?

     The way I read the SLURM output, 29K was malloced. Is this a
     large amount of memory?

     I am trying to get an idea of the scale.

       Thanks,

           Matt

         Is there anything that I can do about this or do I need to
         configure my
         code in a different way?

         I have attached some code extracted from my application which
         demonstrates this along with the output from a running it on
         2 MPI
         processes.

         Best wishes,

         David Scott
         The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered
         in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e
         buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann,
         clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.



     --
     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

https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!cH8SjJvsuVEK1zv8noUjNUJC0VnHFqems68PjB2E94pqxc3q55YprX1q2JXFvPAzXJkh40J1-erXPWdIvc-xrLkRIgg$ <https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!cH8SjJvsuVEK1zv8noUjNUJC0VnHFqems68PjB2E94pqxc3q55YprX1q2JXFvPAzXJkh40J1-erXPWdIvc-xGybRwKU$ >


--
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

https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!cH8SjJvsuVEK1zv8noUjNUJC0VnHFqems68PjB2E94pqxc3q55YprX1q2JXFvPAzXJkh40J1-erXPWdIvc-xrLkRIgg$
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!cH8SjJvsuVEK1zv8noUjNUJC0VnHFqems68PjB2E94pqxc3q55YprX1q2JXFvPAzXJkh40J1-erXPWdIvc-xGybRwKU$
 >


Reply via email to