TEST: 1.8.x + blas variants#199
Conversation
|
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
b986b4b to
b2f9c58
Compare
Scipy 1.8.0TL;DR: A quarter** of relevant combinations is failing in some way, and that's not even counting pypy (or the propack segfaults)From 30 failures out of 96 runs for 1.7.3, we're now at 6 segfaults and 15 failures out of 66 CI runs (dropping cpython 3.7 & pypy 3.7, adding accelerate for osx, switching split of avx512 presence/absence from blis to mkl) ** discounting the 6 PPC failures, which are due to emulation Notable:
The good news:
The bad news:
Details
** sum of Segfaults (S), Failures (F), resp. Timeouts (T); out of a total of 66 CI combinations being tested Build logs: (linux / windows) + mkl + avx512: 1 failureAlso, at the end of the test suite, some (seemingly delayed) log output appears that is perhaps relevant: windows + openblas: 3 failures |
|
Is there someone who cares about the re-enabled Accelerate who can isolate the problems and file new issues? Given that everything gets built with the same g77 ABI and Netlib/OpenBLAS work fine it seems clear that there's an Accelerate issue here. I'm happy to forward the bug reports to Apple to see if they want to prioritize fixes. |
The accelerate stuff in conda-forge is very recent, and not just plain vanilla either - we're using BLAS from accelerate and LAPACK from netlib (because LAPACK from accelerate is too old). I think it's possible that there are still issues on our side after this relatively short incubation time, and maybe not yet the time to bug Apple. CC @isuruf |
@rgommers I am happy to help with this if you give me a brief overview (additional context besides the thread from previous convos) on things to look for. I was pushing for wider adoption of Accelerate a few weeks ago, but I have since concluded that it would likely not be worth it (largely in alignment with the scipy maintainers' argument). I recently started using scipy for a side project and I have been super happy/impressed by some accelerations I got via FITPACK, so I am happy to do what I can in return and learn more about the workings of scipy anyway :) Let me know what would be most helpful here |
|
@h-vetinari my impression (via @isuruf) was that the segfaults were only on osx-arm. Just to confirm: are they also present on osx-64? |
It's the other way around: osx-64 builds are segfaulting, but that's very likely because that's the only osx flavour we have CI for. I expect a very high likelihood that the osx-arm64 builds are also segfaulting with the current scipy-builds. |
b2f9c58 to
de4847e
Compare
b43b18e to
076b309
Compare
…nda-forge-pinning 2023.01.26.16.59.55
076b309 to
1dee1bb
Compare
|
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
Scipy 1.8.1I had originally picked this up in mid 2022, but despaired based on the number of different failures. Now picking this up again to have a reasonable chain record of the changes from here to 1.10. TL;DR: Some persistent failures, but less segfaults; cautious improvements overallFrom 6 segfaults and 15 failures out of 66 runs for 1.8.0, we're now at 0 segfaults and 40 failures out of 110 CI runs (re-added PyPy) The good news:
The bad news:
ALL builds fail the following tests: To avoid a completely red matrix below, I'm discounting those failures from each build detailed stacktraceDetails
Matrix below is discounting the above-mentioned 7 failures present in all builds
** sum of Segfaults (S), Failures (F), resp. Timeouts (T); out of a total of 110 CI combinations being tested Build logs: Failures in addition to the 7 mentioned abovelinux + mkl + avx512: 2 additional failureslinux + netlib + avx512: 1 additional failurelinux + netlib + non-avx512: 2 additional failureslinux + openblas + avx512: 3 additional failureslinux + {x86, aarch} + openblas + non-avx512: 2 additional failureswindows + mkl + avx512: 1 additional failurewindows + openblas + avx512: 9 additional failureswindows + openblas + non-avx512: 8 additional failuresosx + accelerate: 8 additional failuresosx + mkl: 2 additional failuresosx + openblas: 3 additional failures |
|
I see we have this now for 1.8.x, 1.9.x and 1.10.x - that's a bit much to look at. Should we close this and focus on 1.10.x? |
I tend to close the old ones as they become obsolete, but in this case, I wanted to establish the progression from 1.8 to 1.10, and wanted to have a baseline for that (especially as I had missed redoing this for anything after 1.8.0). It's more for historical reference and interested - feel free to skip ahead to 1.10. In any case, this PR can be closed indeed. |
Following the same scheme as #172, #153 & #130. Should not be merged for the same reasons as #153.