-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
BUG: test failures with LAPACK 3.10.1 (& 3.11.0) test suite #44
Comments
Stacktrace of segfault on OSX
|
Stacktrace of one of the failures on windows (
|
Still failing with MKL 2024.0.0 on linux:
and windows:
(osx got dropped, see #62) |
@h-vetinari, I cloned blas-feedstock repository and then ran build-locally.py with option 2 (Linux and MKL). I got 100% LAPACK tests passing. The tests used MKL 2024.0 (by default). Not sure how you got these errors above? What are the specific steps to reproduce these errors? |
Hey @milubin, thanks a lot for taking a look! The update to 3.10.1 hasn't been merged to the blas-feedstock yet, exactly because of the breaking changes. Could you check out conda-forge/blas-feedstock#96 and try again please? |
@h-vetinari, I looked up this pull request and it seems it points to the bump branch in your own repo: |
Yes, the pull request originates from a branch in my repo. The failures that I posted are from the CI for that PR, I'm glad you could already reproduce some failures! Given that all failures appear in |
@h-vetinari, I filed an internal ticket. The main distribution uses LAPACK 3.9.0 -- is that the latest version that passes? We would like to understand if oneMKL 2024.1 (which will be publicly available soon) works with LAPACK 3.10.1. Have you tried LAPACK 3.11.0 or 3.12.0? |
Thank you very much! Indeed 3.9.0 is the latest version that passes (across all BLAS/LAPACK implementations). We didn't try 3.10.0 as your colleagues here said MKL would skip it and go straight for compatibility with 3.10.1. Since then we have been blocked from upgrading further by the test failures that this issue is about. I can build LAPACK 3.11.0 so that the tests in the blas meta-package can be run if that helps. |
@h-vetinari, if you build with 3.11.0 that would help. The same to oneMKL 2024.1 when it becomes available so we can compare notes. |
Alright, there's now a PR you can use to test against LAPACK 3.11. It currently has a lot of failures against MKL 2024.0; if you replace the three occurrences of "2024.0" in Footnotes
|
@h-vetinari, I tested against 3.11, and all tests failed except 86-101. I only have a "typical" engineering build of oneMKL 2024.1 for use on the local system. The change in meta.yaml assumes that 2024.1 is available in packaged for conda-forge form. I guess it can be possible to hack your distribution to point to another oneMKL repository on my local system (in this case, 2024.1) -- I just have not learned how to do this yet. |
@h-vetinari, 3.10.1 and 3.11 are both failing with MKL 2024.1 with the same tests 23 and 65 (as before). I updated the internal ticket. I'll keep you posted. Addition: 2024.0 failed a lot with 3.11 (86 failures out of 100), while 2024.1 failed only with 23 and 65 (with 3.11). Can you confirm that? |
I retested with MKL 2024.1, and still get the following:
on linux and
on windows.
Sorry I missed responding to this. From what I can tell (not looking at individual test failures being subsumed in the ~100 meta-tests), the overall picture stayed the same between 2024.0 and 2024.1 |
@h-vetinari, the fix should be in MKL 2024.2, which was just released. However, I don't see 2024.2 available yet in conda-forge. I will ask internally. |
Happy to report that this is indeed fixed by 2024.2! Thank you! |
While trying to update to LAPACK 3.10.1 & MKL 2023.1, we encounter errors in the LAPACK test suite. The ones on linux are a regression that seems to affect all our current builds (investigating; help appreciated), while on osx & windows, 1-2 tests fail:
OSX:
Windows:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: