Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can't get the spectrum integrated with OpenMP #1019

Closed
epassaro opened this issue Feb 1, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

Can't get the spectrum integrated with OpenMP #1019

epassaro opened this issue Feb 1, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@epassaro
Copy link
Member

epassaro commented Feb 1, 2020

SO: Ubuntu 18.04
Linux Kernel: 5.3.0-26-generic
Compilers: using the latest conda-forge compilers
TARDIS version: 3.0.dev3378

Steps:

  1. Install via TARDIS via setup.py with the --with-openmp flag.
  2. Run simulation with default tardis_example.yml and default atomic data, with nthreads greater than 1 and call simulation.runner.spectrum_integrated lazy attribute.

Output:

[tardis.simulation.base][INFO   ]  Simulation finished in 20 iterations and took 179.66 s (base.py:308)
Doing the formal integral
Running with OpenMP - 4 threads
        [100%] Bins(finished/total): 10000/10000
double free or corruption (!prev)
Makefile:4: recipe for target 'spectra' failed
make: *** [spectra] Aborted (core dumped)
@epassaro
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe this is related to the changes introduced in #995

@epassaro
Copy link
Member Author

I can confirm this bug was introduced in #995 @wkerzendorf

@cbadjatya
Copy link

cbadjatya commented Mar 8, 2020

@epassaro I tried recreating the issue with these steps :
installed tardis with --with-openmp
changed tardis_example.yml file with nthreads=3 and method : integrated in spectrum block

However upon running the quickstart notebook, the simulation simply ended with

[tardis.simulation.base][INFO   ]  Simulation finished in 20 iterations and took 36.05 s (base.py:308)

Am I executing all necessary steps?

@Phantsure
Copy link
Contributor

I tried reversing the changes in #995, still same error. My machine specs are similar.

@kaushik94
Copy link
Contributor

I think #995 should be reverted anyways @epassaro @wkerzendorf .

@epassaro
Copy link
Member Author

Fixed by #1159.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants