-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 573
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
Panzer: Protect evaluateFields with fence #7902
Panzer: Protect evaluateFields with fence #7902
Conversation
Status Flag 'Pre-Test Inspection' - SUCCESS: The last commit to this Pull Request has been INSPECTED AND APPROVED by [ rppawlo ]! |
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - Testing Jenkins Projects: Pull Request Auto Testing STARTING (click to expand)Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.8.4
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_intel_17.0.1
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.9.3_SERIAL
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_7.2.0_debug
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_8.3.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_cuda_9.2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_clang_10.0.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_3
Jenkins Parameters
Using Repos:
Pull Request Author: MicheldeMessieres |
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - Jenkins Testing: 1 or more Jobs FAILED Note: Testing will normally be attempted again in approx. 2 Hrs 30 Mins. If a change to the PR source branch occurs, the testing will be attempted again on next available autotester run. Pull Request Auto Testing has FAILED (click to expand)Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.8.4
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_intel_17.0.1
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.9.3_SERIAL
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_7.2.0_debug
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_8.3.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_cuda_9.2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_clang_10.0.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_3
Jenkins Parameters
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.8.4 # 7660 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_intel_17.0.1 # 7470 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.9.3_SERIAL # 5895 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_7.2.0_debug # 115 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_8.3.0 # 1931 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_cuda_9.2 # 5227 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_clang_10.0.0 # 376 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_python_2 # 3232 (click to expand)
Console Output (last 100 lines) : Trilinos_pullrequest_python_3 # 3253 (click to expand)
|
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - User Requested Retest - Label AT: RETEST will be reset after testing. |
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - Testing Jenkins Projects: Pull Request Auto Testing STARTING (click to expand)Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.8.4
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_intel_17.0.1
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.9.3_SERIAL
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_7.2.0_debug
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_8.3.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_cuda_9.2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_clang_10.0.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_3
Jenkins Parameters
Using Repos:
Pull Request Author: MicheldeMessieres |
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - Jenkins Testing: all Jobs PASSED Pull Request Auto Testing has PASSED (click to expand)Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.8.4
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_intel_17.0.1
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_4.9.3_SERIAL
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_7.2.0_debug
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_gcc_8.3.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_cuda_9.2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_clang_10.0.0
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_2
Jenkins Parameters
Build InformationTest Name: Trilinos_pullrequest_python_3
Jenkins Parameters
|
Status Flag 'Pre-Merge Inspection' - SUCCESS: The last commit to this Pull Request has been INSPECTED AND APPROVED by [ rppawlo ]! |
Status Flag 'Pull Request AutoTester' - AutoMerge IS ENABLED, but the Label AT: AUTOMERGE is not set. Either set Label AT: AUTOMERGE or manually merge the PR... |
@trilinos/panzer
Adds fence before the call to evaluateFields. Note this is not exactly what we discussed (which was the fence afterwards) but I think this is more correct, and temporary anyways. Either way will pass the tests. I see many evaluateFields use UVM directly so I think we want to protect all of them before. It may be a coincidence it passes the other way.
I suggest we merge this fence which will complete panzer to pass all unit tests with CUDA_LAUNCH_BLOCKING=0. Then I will open a discussion PR which adds a tag on all fences. Refactoring each of the evaluateFields to not use UVM might be the next logical thing for me to work on. As a first step I think we may want to remove this fence and add it in every evaluateFields method that uses UVM. Then we can refactor one at a time and test.
Motivation
Fix panzer tests for CUDA_LAUNCH_BLOCKING=0
Testing
Cuda white panzer tests