# Help needed: 1.30 make check fails on one of my machines **URL:** \ **Category:** Users\ **Created:** [March 24, 2023, 8:15pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630 "2023-03-24T20:15:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 8:15pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/1 "2023-03-24T20:15:19Z")
Hello again. I have downloaded and installed 1.30 at work and everything was fine this afternoon. Now at home I have a newer computer, and running make check after the compiler is built I get (3 trials all the same result): chapel-1.30.0$ make check [Info] Running minimal test script: $CHPL\_HOME/util/test/checkChplInstall [Info] Found executable chpl in /home/nldias/chapel-1.30.0/bin/linux64-x86\_64/chpl. [Info] Found $CHPL\_HOME directory: /home/nldias/chapel-1.30.0 [Info] /home/nldias/.chpl does not exist. Creating it. [Info] Temporary test job directory: /home/nldias/.chpl/chapel-test-2HhGVw [Info] Compiling $CHPL\_HOME/examples/hello6-taskpar-dist.chpl [Info] Compiling with CHPL\_TARGET\_COMPILER=llvm [Info] Test job compiled into /home/nldias/.chpl/chapel-test-2HhGVw/hello6-taskpar-dist [Info] $CHPL\_LAUNCHER=none is compatible with test script. [Info] Running test job. [Info] Test job complete. [Fail] There was an issue with the installation, test job output incorrect. [Info] To see the test outputs, export CHPL\_CHECK\_DEBUG=1 and re-run "make check" == Actual Test Output (raw, with verbose) == internal error: topo-hwloc.c: 333: !((pusPerCore == 0) || (pusPerCore == numPus)) make: \*\*\* [Makefile:212: check] Error 20 It appears to be something about the number of Pus, but I can't get anywhere from here. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Meanwhile, I am stuck with 1.29 🙂 For the record, my computer stats are: System: Kernel: 5.15.0-67-generic x86\_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 11.3.0 Desktop: Cinnamon 5.6.8 tk: GTK 3.24.33 wm: muffin dm: LightDM Distro: Linux Mint 21.1 Vera base: Ubuntu 22.04 jammy Machine: Type: Desktop Mobo: Gigabyte model: B660M GAMING X v: x.x serial: UEFI: American Megatrends LLC. v: F2 date: 01/25/2022 CPU: Info: 16-core (8-mt/8-st) model: 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900K bits: 64 type: MST AMCP arch: Alder Lake rev: 2 cache: L1: 1.4 MiB L2: 14 MiB L3: 30 MiB Speed (MHz): avg: 4545 high: 4908 min/max: 800/5100:5200:3900 cores: 1: 4868 2: 4903 3: 4875 4: 4900 5: 4900 6: 4884 7: 4820 8: 4901 9: 4901 10: 4908 11: 4736 12: 4900 13: 4819 14: 4900 15: 4879 16: 4900 17: 3871 18: 3900 19: 3898 20: 3831 21: 3902 22: 3900 23: 3900 24: 3899 bogomips: 152985 Flags: avx avx2 ht lm nx pae sse sse2 sse3 sse4\_1 sse4\_2 ssse3 vmx Graphics: Device-1: Intel AlderLake-S GT1 vendor: Gigabyte driver: i915 v: kernel ports: active: HDMI-A-1,HDMI-A-2 empty: DP-1 bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:4680 Device-2: Logitech Webcam C270 type: USB driver: snd-usb-audio,uvcvideo bus-ID: 1-7.4:8 chip-ID: 046d:0825 Display: x11 server: [X.Org](http://X.Org) v: 1.21.1.3 driver: X: loaded: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa gpu: i915 display-ID: :0 screens: 1 Screen-1: 0 s-res: 2820x1600 s-dpi: 96 Monitor-1: HDMI-1 mapped: HDMI-A-1 pos: primary,top-left model: LG (GoldStar) 20M35 res: 900x1600 dpi: 97 diag: 506mm (19.9") Monitor-2: HDMI-2 mapped: HDMI-A-2 pos: primary,bottom-r model: LG (GoldStar) FULL HD res: 1920x1080 dpi: 102 diag: 551mm (21.7") OpenGL: renderer: Mesa Intel UHD Graphics 770 (ADL-S GT1) v: 4.6 Mesa 22.2.5 direct render: Yes Audio: Device-1: Intel vendor: Gigabyte driver: snd\_hda\_intel v: kernel bus-ID: 00:1f.3 chip-ID: 8086:7ad0 Device-2: Logitech Webcam C270 type: USB driver: snd-usb-audio,uvcvideo bus-ID: 1-7.4:8 chip-ID: 046d:0825 Sound Server-1: ALSA v: k5.15.0-67-generic running: yes Sound Server-2: PulseAudio v: 15.99.1 running: yes Sound Server-3: PipeWire v: 0.3.48 running: yes Network: Device-1: Realtek RTL8125 2.5GbE vendor: Gigabyte driver: r8169 v: kernel pcie: speed: 5 GT/s lanes: 1 port: 3000 bus-ID: 03:00.0 chip-ID: 10ec:8125 IF: enp3s0 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: Drives: Local Storage: total: 2.26 TiB used: 657.59 GiB (28.5%) ID-1: /dev/nvme0n1 vendor: Western Digital model: WDS480G2G0C-00AJM0 size: 447.13 GiB speed: 31.6 Gb/s lanes: 4 serial: temp: 43.9 C ID-2: /dev/sda vendor: Seagate model: ST2000DM008-2FR102 size: 1.82 TiB speed: 6.0 Gb/s serial: Partition: ID-1: / size: 318.04 GiB used: 25.5 GiB (8.0%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/nvme0n1p3 ID-2: /boot/efi size: 3.72 GiB used: 6.1 MiB (0.2%) fs: vfat dev: /dev/nvme0n1p2 ID-3: /home size: 1.79 TiB used: 632.08 GiB (34.5%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda1 Swap: ID-1: swap-1 type: partition size: 119.21 GiB used: 0 KiB (0.0%) priority: -2 dev: /dev/nvme0n1p1 USB: Hub-1: 1-0:1 info: Hi-speed hub with single TT ports: 16 rev: 2.0 speed: 480 Mb/s chip-ID: 1d6b:0002 Device-1: 1-5:2 info: Integrated Express ITE Device type: HID driver: hid-generic,usbhid rev: 2.0 speed: 12 Mb/s chip-ID: 048d:5702 Hub-2: 1-7:3 info: Genesys Logic Hub ports: 4 rev: 2.0 speed: 480 Mb/s chip-ID: 05e3:0608 Device-1: 1-7.1:5 info: Logitech M105 Optical Mouse type: Mouse driver: hid-generic,usbhid rev: 2.0 speed: 1.5 Mb/s chip-ID: 046d:c077 Device-2: 1-7.2:6 info: Logitech Keyboard K120 type: Keyboard,HID driver: hid-generic,usbhid rev: 1.1 speed: 1.5 Mb/s chip-ID: 046d:c31c Device-3: 1-7.4:8 info: Logitech Webcam C270 type: Video,Audio driver: snd-usb-audio,uvcvideo rev: 2.0 speed: 480 Mb/s chip-ID: 046d:0825 Hub-3: 1-11:4 info: Genesys Logic Hub ports: 4 rev: 2.0 speed: 480 Mb/s chip-ID: 05e3:0608 Device-1: 1-11.4:7 info: Motorola PCS XT1541 [Moto G 3rd Gen] type: driver: usbfs rev: 2.0 speed: 480 Mb/s chip-ID: 22b8:2e82 Hub-4: 2-0:1 info: Super-speed hub ports: 10 rev: 3.1 speed: 20 Gb/s chip-ID: 1d6b:0003 Sensors: System Temperatures: cpu: 55.0 C mobo: 16.8 C Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A Repos: Packages: apt: 2718 No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list 1: deb [arch=amd64] https: [//dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/](https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/) stable main Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/insync.list 1: deb http: [//apt.insync.io/mint](https://apt.insync.io/mint) vera non-free contrib Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/official-package-repositories.list 1: deb http: [//packages.linuxmint.com](https://packages.linuxmint.com) vera main upstream import backport 2: deb http: [//archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu](https://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu) jammy main restricted universe multiverse 3: deb http: [//archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu](https://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu) jammy-updates main restricted universe multiverse 4: deb http: [//archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu](https://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu) jammy-backports main restricted universe multiverse 5: deb http: [//security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/](https://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/) jammy-security main restricted universe multiverse Info: Processes: 432 Uptime: 11m Memory: 62.58 GiB used: 4.23 GiB (6.8%) Init: systemd v: 249 runlevel: 5 Compilers: gcc: 11.3.0 alt: 11/12 Client: Unknown python3.10 client inxi: 3.3.13 ---
**Author:** ![bradcray](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/bradcray/32/72_2.png) [@bradcray](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/bradcray)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 8:32pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/2 "2023-03-24T20:32:38Z")
Hi Nelson — Thanks for reporting this. Our developer who is most likely to be able to help here is out today, but I've asked him to take a look next week. Two potential workarounds in the meantime, if you're interested: - try setting `CHPL_HWLOC=none` and rebuildind to disable hwloc - or, try commenting out the line in question and re-building to see what happens 🙂 (it's in `runtime/src/topo/hwloc/topo-hwloc.c`) Thanks again, and have a good weekend, -Brad ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 8:54pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/3 "2023-03-24T20:54:50Z")
Hi Brad: thanks a lot for the tip: setting CHPL\_HWLOC=none appears to make the compiler work! I will however erase everything (I just said "make clean" and rebuilt) and start from scratch to make sure. I will keep you posted. regards Nelson ---
**Author:** ![bradcray](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/bradcray/32/72_2.png) [@bradcray](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/bradcray)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 8:58pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/4 "2023-03-24T20:58:48Z")
Hi Nelson — OK, thanks for the report back. I expect the clean build will work equally well. Note that our preferred mode is generally to use `CHPL_HWLOC=none`, so I think of this as a short-term workaround and not a satisfying solution. We'll hope to come up with that next week. Best wishes, -Brad ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 9:08pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/5 "2023-03-24T21:08:18Z")
Yes, a clean build works just as fine 🙂 Many thanks again Nelson ---
**Author:** ![jhh67](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/jhh67/32/169_2.png) [@jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 10:18pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/6 "2023-03-24T22:18:25Z")
The problem is this CPU has a variable number of threads per core. It has 8 "performance cores" with 2 threads per core, and 8 "efficient" cores with 1 thread per core. The runtime assumes that all cores have the same number of threads and is checking for that. I'll have to think about how to work around this. John ---
**Author:** ![jhh67](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/jhh67/32/169_2.png) [@jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2023, 10:48pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/7 "2023-03-27T22:48:04Z")
Nelson, I wanted to get back to you with some details on the problem you encountered with the Chapel 1.30 release. We don’t officially support machines with heterogeneous cores, which is what the failing assert in the `hwloc` topology layer is checking. In the short term the best solution is to set `CHPL_HWLOC=none` which shouldn't have a noticeable performance impact when running on a desktop or laptop. In the longer run I will remove the assertion and the assumption that it is protecting, but then the number of cores returned by `locale.numPUs(logical=false, accessible=false)` may not be correct on machines with heterogeneous cores because the runtime can’t get information about cores it can’t access. I plan to make this change in the next week or so, and it would be great if you could test it on your machine as I don't have access to one with heterogeneous cores. In the much longer term we need to come up with a strategy for handling heterogeneous cores. For example, on a machine with some performance cores and some efficient cores, should we run on only the former, or only the latter, or all of them? How would a user effectively express what they want to happen? John ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2023, 11:25am UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/8 "2023-03-28T11:25:37Z")
> jhh67 [https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67) > March 27 > > Nelson, I wanted to get back to you with some details on the problem you > encountered with the Chapel 1.30 release. We don’t officially support > machines with heterogeneous cores, which is what the failing assert in the > hwloc topology layer is checking. In the short term the best solution is > to set CHPL\_HWLOC=none which shouldn't have a noticeable performance > impact when running on a desktop or laptop. In the longer run I will remove > the assertion and the assumption that it is protecting, but then the number > of cores returned by locale.numPUs(logical=false, accessible=false) may > not be correct on machines with heterogeneous cores because the runtime > can’t get information about cores it can’t access. I plan to make this > change in the next week or so, and it would be great if you could test it > on your machine as I don't have access to one with heterogeneous cores. Hi John: many thanks for the quick response. I have already tried HPL\_HWLOC=none per Brad's suggestion and it works. It conflicts with CHPL\_RT\_NUM\_THREADS\_PER\_LOCALE=MAX\_LOGICAL that I used before but I don't know why :-), so I commented out the latter. By all means, I will be very glad to test the changes you make on my machine and report back to you. In the much longer term we need to come up with a strategy for handling > heterogeneous cores. For example, on a machine with some performance cores > and some efficient cores, should we run on only the former, or only the > latter, or all of them? How would a user effectively express what they want > to happen? The best scenario for me (but I understand that this may be asking for too much) would be to be able to choose which strategy to use at compile time. In the meantime, I will run a few tests here with the current version to discover how many cores it is able to access and if I can specify (by hand, as it were) which PUs to use. Please bear with me as it is all way beyond my knowledge basis. Best Nelson ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2023, 3:19pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/9 "2023-04-15T15:19:05Z")
I have come up with a workaround for the problem of having two different kinds of cores ("power" and "efficient") in a computer. I have re-compiled the compiler (make clean; make) without setting CHPL\_HWLOC at all. Then, compile "prog.chpl" also without setting CHPL\_HWLOC, and using CHPL\_RT\_NUM\_THREADS\_PER\_LOCALE=MAX\_LOGICAL. Finally, and here is the trick, run with $taskset -c 0--15 ./prog This (I think!) only uses the first 16 "power" logical cores and the program runs fine. Hope this is useful! Cheers Nelson ---
**Author:** ![jhh67](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/jhh67/32/169_2.png) [@jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2023, 6:00pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/10 "2023-04-18T18:00:32Z")
I created issue [runtime support for heterogeneous cores · Issue #22109 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub](https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/22109) for this bug. Nelson, thank you for suggesting the `tasksel` solution. I'd like to get feedback on the best way for the user to specify how the runtime should handle heterogeneous cores. John ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2023, 8:10pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/11 "2023-04-19T20:10:39Z")
Hi John: sorry for the late reply. For a single locale system, I wonder if it makes sense to issue a flag at run time such as ./prog --pus=0-15, which simply emulates tasksel. My humble opinion is that it does not; better just to make users of heterogeneous cores machines aware that tasksel effectively solves the problem. It appears that right now heterogeneous cores means that some cores are considerably slower, less powerful, and more energy-efficient. Not the cores that I want to use if the point is run things as fast as possible, and to balance the load among the cores. So here are my two cents. Best, Nelson. ---
**Author:** ![jhh67](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/jhh67/32/169_2.png) [@jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2023, 9:16pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/12 "2023-05-16T21:16:36Z")
Nelson, it would be helpful if you could send me the output of "lstopo --of xml" on your machine. I hope to have better support for heterogeneous cores in Chapel 1.31.0, although it might just be a better error message, time permitting. John ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2023, 10:05pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/13 "2023-05-16T22:05:56Z")
sure thing. here it is: regards Nelson [lstopo.txt](https://chapel.discourse.group/uploads/short-url/dwZhVj32mhAAXXPg46D34DJCwMq.txt) (26.8 KB) ---
**Author:** ![bradcray](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/bradcray/32/72_2.png) [@bradcray](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/bradcray)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2023, 10:10pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/14 "2023-05-16T22:10:12Z")
Hi Nelson — We're seeing an "attachment is missing" message here, potentially due to the file extension? Can you see if a .txt file extension works better, or mail it to me directly if not and I'll get it on here by hook or by crook? -Brad ---
**Author:** ![bradcray](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/bradcray/32/72_2.png) [@bradcray](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/bradcray)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2023, 7:46pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/15 "2023-05-17T19:46:06Z")
@jhh67 and @nelsonluisdias : I've attached the output to Nelson's previous message by renaming it to a .txt file. -Brad ---
**Author:** ![jhh67](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/jhh67/32/169_2.png) [@jhh67](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/jhh67)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 4:45pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/16 "2023-09-05T16:45:20Z")
Nelson, the next release of Chapel will include support for heterogeneous processing units. By default, the runtime will only use the performance (P) cores, although this behavior can be changed by setting `CHPL_RT_USE_PU_KIND` to one of "performance", "efficiency", or "all". John ---
**Author:** ![nelsonluisdias](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/chapel.discourse.group/nelsonluisdias/32/691_2.png) [@nelsonluisdias](https://chapel.discourse.group/u/nelsonluisdias)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 5:52pm UTC](https://chapel.discourse.group/t/help-needed-1-30-make-check-fails-on-one-of-my-machines/20630/17 "2023-09-05T17:52:04Z")
Hi John. Great news. It certainly is very convenient for the general user. Thanks a lot for taking care of this! Cheers Nelson