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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

ill-defined post-processor can lead to seg fault in parallel runs #9889

Closed

novasr opened this issue Sep 21, 2017 · 6 comments

Assignees

Labels

C: Framework P: normal T: defect

Contributor

novasr commented Sep 21, 2017

Description of the enhancement or error report

A post processor that doesn't specify a block and operates on a variable that is defined only on one block of a multi-block mesh will run in serial, yet seg fault in parallel. @aeslaughter, I heard you were working on error checking that might catch this type of mistake.

Rationale for the enhancement or information for reproducing the error

See attached input file and mesh (cubit journal file) to reproduce the seg fault.

Identified impact

When running large simulations in parallel, this may or may not occur depending on mesh size, number of procs used, and partitioning.

multi_proc_error.txt
two_block_demo.txt

Contributor

aeslaughter commented Sep 21, 2017

I think this might be a separate case then what I was working on, I will have to play around with this a bit. That probably won't happen right away unless this is stopping you from working.

aeslaughter added C: Framework P: normal T: defect labels

aeslaughter self-assigned this

Contributor Author

novasr commented Sep 21, 2017

Not urgent.

Contributor

WilkAndy commented Oct 13, 2017

Perhaps more urgent than previously thought. We had another question moose-users about this today.

Contributor

WilkAndy commented Oct 18, 2017

And the poor guy can't even use "block = XXXX" to make his simulation run!

Member

permcody commented Oct 18, 2017 via email

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45 PM Andy Wilkins ***@***.***> wrote: And the poor guy can't even use "block = XXXX" to make his simulation run! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9889 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5XIEmt_M5aFWxyFoVdwlp5BS4cWlPRks5stWZYgaJpZM4Peplt> .

Contributor

aeslaughter commented Oct 18, 2017

@permcody I will take a look today.

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add error check that variable block restriction is correct for object…

f0d767b

… block restriction

(closes idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter mentioned this issue

Add error check that variable and object block restriction match #10114

Merged

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add error check that variable block restriction is correct for object…

5b236d2

… block restriction

(closes idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add variable and block boundary check to coupled variables

4e38c47

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Improve const reference use in Block/BoundaryRestrictiable

0e3c156

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Re-factor DGKernel class to provide proper block restriction for Inte…

…rfaceKernel

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Removed unused initialization flag from BlockRestrictable

6d1d843

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

01252f3

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

3cdab53

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          WIP: Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

3618bd3

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

e153071

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

cadc286

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

a26e751

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          WIP: Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

f9ceda0

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

524578d

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

9da8d9f

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          WIP: Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

97ad42b

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          WIP: Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

618958d

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add error check that variable block restriction is correct for object…

cc6bd8f

… block restriction

(closes idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add variable and block boundary check to coupled variables

a94bd5c

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Improve const reference use in Block/BoundaryRestrictiable

7c8285d

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Re-factor DGKernel class to provide proper block restriction for Inte…

65e359d

…rfaceKernel

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Removed unused initialization flag from BlockRestrictable

ab7e0cb

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

d70aba2

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

a269d62

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

bfb15a7

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

5e9ae2a

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

74dc44e

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Remove BlockRestrictable assumptions about 'variable' parameter

69d5113

Assuming the blocks ids to match 'variable' command is not very robust, what if it is coupled?
(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Restore the assumed block restriction based on 'variable' parameter

df8bcd9

There were too many tests, especially in the applications, that rely on the assumption that the object should be restricted to the
same subdomains as the 'variable' parameter if 'blocks' is not present. This restores that assumption and cleans up the implementation
of it.

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add error check that variable block restriction is correct for object…

a3af42a

… block restriction

(closes idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add variable and block boundary check to coupled variables

670e66c

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Improve const reference use in Block/BoundaryRestrictiable

9ffe0ac

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Re-factor DGKernel class to provide proper block restriction for Inte…

0c19e9c

…rfaceKernel

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Removed unused initialization flag from BlockRestrictable

a39ae5f

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

907b98a

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

954770e

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Simplify code for the BlockRestrictable assumption about 'variable' p…

aee1f98

…arameter

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add error check that variable block restriction is correct for object…

54cb49e

… block restriction

(closes idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Add variable and block boundary check to coupled variables

78f7623

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Improve const reference use in Block/BoundaryRestrictiable

f978ca6

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Re-factor DGKernel class to provide proper block restriction for Inte…

…rfaceKernel

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Removed unused initialization flag from BlockRestrictable

a073c8f

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          migrate BlockRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

d86a6a1

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Update BoundaryRestrictable to use MooseObject pointer

ea02e4c

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Simplify code for the BlockRestrictable assumption about 'variable' p…

efab6a0

…arameter

(refs idaholab#9889)

aeslaughter added a commit to aeslaughter/moose that referenced this issue


          Address review comments

151b238

(refs idaholab#9889)

permcody closed this as completed in #10114

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment