OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 python3 -m mwe DO_HASH
I confirm I reproduce the bug with the version below :version: 2.19 (commit da041f33, Sat Nov 12 17:27:48 2016 +0100)gcc version: 5.4.0compilation flags: -I/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/numpy/core/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python3.5m -fopenmp -fvisibility=default -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -O3 -Wno-deprecated -Wno-unknown-pragmas -ftemplate-depth-250 -DNDEBUG -Wall -Wextra -ftemplate-backtrace-limit=0 install prefix: /usr/localpython dir: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packagesgraph filtering: Trueopenmp: Trueuname: Linux tungstene 4.4.0-45-generic #66-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 19 14:12:37 UTC 2016 x86_64François.--On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:12 PM, François Kawala <francois.kawala@gmail.com> wrote:I build the latest version with debug enabled and openmp disable, the bug is not present anymore.version: 2.19 (commit da041f33, Sat Nov 12 17:27:48 2016 +0100)gcc version: 5.4.0compilation flags: -I/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/numpy/core/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python3.5m -fvisibility=default -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -O3 -Wno-deprecated -Wno-unknown-pragmas -ftemplate-depth-250 -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -ftemplate-backtrace-limit=0 -Wno-unknown-pragmas install prefix: /usr/localpython dir: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packagesgraph filtering: Trueopenmp: Falseuname: Linux tungstene 4.4.0-45-generic #66-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 19 14:12:37 UTC 2016 x86_64For the record, the version below has the bug :version: 2.18 (commit 37996a0a, Thu Jul 21 17:56:14 2016 +0200)gcc version: 5.3.1compilation flags: -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -I/usr/include/python3.5m -I/usr/include -I/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/numpy/core/include -Wall -Wextra -ftemplate-backtrace-limit=0 -flto=4 -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections --std=gnu++14 -DNDEBUG -ftemplate-depth-250 -Wno-deprecated -Wno-unknown-pragmas -O3 -fvisibility=default -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fopenmp -Wl,--gc-sections install prefix: /usrpython dir: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packagesgraph filtering: Trueopenmp: Trueuname: Linux tungstene 4.4.0-45-generic #66-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 19 14:12:37 UTC 2016 x86_64I'm building the head version with openmp enabled to know if it might be involved in the bug.François.--On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:35 PM, François Kawala <francois.kawala@gmail.com> wrote:As a side note, the MWE I provide calls graph_tool.topology.shortest_path without specifying the target., but the logs refer to the target, this is counterintuitive, sorry about that. However, the behavior is as described above when one does specify the target to graph_tool.topology.shortest_p ath. François--On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, François Kawala <francois.kawala@gmail.com> wrote:To be comprehensive, I add here the MWE source. Note that I fixed the vertices so that the output is reproducible. However, one could select randomly the vertices and would end with the same behavior.Bests,François.import multiprocessingimport graph_tool as gtimport graph_tool.topology as gttimport hashlibimport sysclass MyProcess(multiprocessing.Process): """A process that computes shortest paths and shortest distances in a graph tool graph."""def __init__(self, graph, test):super(MyProcess, self).__init__()self.graph = graphself.test = testdef run(self):while True:# Operation is repeated so that the bug is cristal clear.source, target = self.testsource = self.graph.vertex(source)target = self.graph.vertex(target)# We start the work.print('{} does shortest_distance from {} to {}'.format(self, source, target))gtt.shortest_distance(self.graph, source=source,weights=self.graph.ep['weight'], max_dist=1400,pred_map=True)# We end the work.print('{} done.'.format(self))def hash_graphs(*args):"""Provides an edge based graph digest that can be used to invalidate old cache.:type args: tuple of :class:`graph_tool.GraphView`:param args: the graphs to be hashed.:rtype: str:return: a hash digest of the input graph."""graph_hash = hashlib.md5()for graph in args:graph_hash.update(gt.edge_endpoint_property(graph, graph.vp['id'], "source").a.tobytes()) graph_hash.update(gt.edge_endpoint_property(graph, graph.vp['id'], "target").a.tobytes()) return graph_hash.hexdigest()if __name__ == '__main__':# Unserialize the graph.graph = gt.load_graph('./mwe/graph.gt.gz') # Bug switch.if sys.argv[-1] == 'DO_HASH':graph_hash = hash_graphs(graph)# Repetable inputs.tests = [(452946, 391015),(266188, 207342),(514127, 290838),(439705, 87897),(223098, 440593),(279880, 368550),(108357, 199593),(273888, 275937)]# Actual work.procs = [MyProcess(graph, tests[i]) for i in range(8)]for proc in procs:proc.start()for proc in procs:proc.join()--On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:24 PM, François Kawala <francois.kawala@gmail.com> wrote:Hello,I observe a quite strange bug that involves python's multiprocessing library. I try to use (read only) one graph instance with several Multithreading.Process. The graph is unserialized in the parent process. Each child receives a reference to the graph. Then each child does simple repetitive calls to graph_tool.topology.shortest_distance . Everything great each child process works as fast as it can. However when the main process executes the hash_graphs function presented below, each child process hangs infinitely. The hash_graphs is executed prior to the children start.I package a MWE, it is available here : https://drive.google.com/file/def hash_graphs(*args):"""Provides an edge based graph digest that can be used to invalidate old cache.:type args: tuple of :class:`graph_tool.GraphView`:param args: the graphs to be hashed.:rtype: str:return: a hash digest of the input graph."""graph_hash = hashlib.md5()for graph in args:graph_hash.update(gt.edge_endpoint_property(graph, graph.vp['id'], "source").a.tobytes()) graph_hash.update(gt.edge_endpoint_property(graph, graph.vp['id'], "target").a.tobytes()) return graph_hash.hexdigest()d/0B5GhhBKHOKOxVnpfYTBwNDZxODA . To run it simply do :/view?usp=sharing tar xzf mwe.tar.gz# run the buggy versionpython3 -m mwe DO_HASH# run as expectedpython3 -m mweThe buggy output looks like :<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> does shortest_distance from 266188 to 207342<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838<MyProcess(MyProcess-4, started)> does shortest_distance from 439705 to 87897<MyProcess(MyProcess-5, started)> does shortest_distance from 223098 to 440593<MyProcess(MyProcess-6, started)> does shortest_distance from 279880 to 368550<MyProcess(MyProcess-7, started)> does shortest_distance from 108357 to 199593<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> does shortest_distance from 273888 to 275937The expected output looks like :<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> does shortest_distance from 266188 to 207342<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838<MyProcess(MyProcess-5, started)> does shortest_distance from 223098 to 440593<MyProcess(MyProcess-6, started)> does shortest_distance from 279880 to 368550<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> does shortest_distance from 266188 to 207342<MyProcess(MyProcess-4, started)> does shortest_distance from 439705 to 87897<MyProcess(MyProcess-7, started)> does shortest_distance from 108357 to 199593<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> does shortest_distance from 273888 to 275937<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> does shortest_distance from 266188 to 207342<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-6, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-6, started)> does shortest_distance from 279880 to 368550<MyProcess(MyProcess-4, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-4, started)> does shortest_distance from 439705 to 87897<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> does shortest_distance from 273888 to 275937<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-2, started)> does shortest_distance from 266188 to 207342<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838<MyProcess(MyProcess-5, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-5, started)> does shortest_distance from 223098 to 440593<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-1, started)> does shortest_distance from 452946 to 391015<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-8, started)> does shortest_distance from 273888 to 275937<MyProcess(MyProcess-7, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-7, started)> does shortest_distance from 108357 to 199593<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> done.<MyProcess(MyProcess-3, started)> does shortest_distance from 514127 to 290838...How could I explain this behavior ?Bests,François.François KawalaFrançois KawalaFrançois KawalaFrançois Kawala