Skip to content
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

Updates AlgebraicSolving #3987

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Sep 19, 2024
Merged

Updates AlgebraicSolving #3987

merged 15 commits into from
Sep 19, 2024

Conversation

ederc
Copy link
Member

@ederc ederc commented Aug 2, 2024

@ederc ederc marked this pull request as draft August 2, 2024 09:16
src/Rings/groebner.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Rings/groebner.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Rings/groebner.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Rings/groebner.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Rings/groebner.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/Rings/solving.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fingolfin
fingolfin previously approved these changes Sep 16, 2024
Copy link
Member

@fingolfin fingolfin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you. Perhaps the docstrings could be adjusted to reflect the changed defaults for the algorithm kwarg, but otherwise this seems fine (and the weird CI issue seems to be gone now?)

@ederc ederc marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2024 11:44
@fingolfin fingolfin enabled auto-merge (squash) September 16, 2024 12:48
@lgoettgens
Copy link
Member

This now has conflicts

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 53.33333% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.65%. Comparing base (b5d0b43) to head (a2a3831).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/Rings/groebner.jl 53.33% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3987      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.66%   84.65%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         626      626              
  Lines       84210    84226      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits        71300    71303       +3     
- Misses      12910    12923      +13     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/Rings/groebner.jl 89.35% <53.33%> (-0.92%) ⬇️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

@ederc
Copy link
Member Author

ederc commented Sep 17, 2024

@fingolfin @lgoettgens Conflicts were fixed, but I still have no idea why the short tests are failing.

@benlorenz
Copy link
Member

The code seems to be running out of memory on the github workers.

Locally, running only the binomial-ideals testfile pushes the memory usage to 12GB, and it does not go down even after running GC.gc() manually several times. Running it a second time in the same session quickly exceeds my memory and causes the julia process to die:

julia> println(Base.format_bytes(Sys.maxrss()))
1.905 GiB

julia> Oscar.test_module("Rings/binomial-ideals.jl", new=false,tempproject=false)
Test Summary:   | Pass  Total   Time
Binomial Ideals |   32     32  46.2s

julia> GC.gc(); GC.gc();

julia> println(Base.format_bytes(Sys.maxrss()))
12.084 GiB

julia> Oscar.test_module("Rings/binomial-ideals.jl", new=false,tempproject=false)
Killed

For comparison, on master, the julia process needs about 2.7GB for running the binomial ideals test file.

julia> println(Base.format_bytes(Sys.maxrss()))
1.906 GiB

julia> Oscar.test_module("Rings/binomial-ideals.jl", new=false,tempproject=false)
Test Summary:   | Pass  Total   Time
Binomial Ideals |   32     32  38.9s

julia> GC.gc(); GC.gc();

julia> println(Base.format_bytes(Sys.maxrss()))
2.764 GiB

julia> Oscar.test_module("Rings/binomial-ideals.jl", new=false,tempproject=false)
Test Summary:   | Pass  Total  Time
Binomial Ideals |   32     32  4.8s

julia> GC.gc(); GC.gc();

julia> println(Base.format_bytes(Sys.maxrss()))
2.764 GiB

PS: The binomial ideals file was the last one that was started before this CI job died: https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/actions/runs/10899937413/job/30250935622?pr=3987#step:9:3655

@ederc
Copy link
Member Author

ederc commented Sep 17, 2024

@benlorenz Thanks, I think now I know what the problem is. I will need to make a new minor msolve release first.

Project.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lgoettgens
Copy link
Member

There is some (new) error in CI:
https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/actions/runs/10939116703/job/30368701750?pr=3987#step:9:4503

      From worker 5:	flag pluecker ideal: Test Failed at /Users/aaruni/Desktop/oscar-runners/runner-4/_work/Oscar.jl/Oscar.jl/test/Rings/mpoly.jl:567
      From worker 5:	  Expression: [f1] == gens(I)
      From worker 5:	   Evaluated: QQMPolyRingElem[-x[[1, 4]]*x[[2, 3]] + x[[2, 4]]*x[[1, 3]] - x[[3, 4]]*x[[1, 2]]] == QQMPolyRingElem[-x[[1, 4]]*x[[2, 3]] + x[[2, 4]]*x[[1, 3]] - x[[3, 4]]*x[[1, 2]]]

@ederc
Copy link
Member Author

ederc commented Sep 19, 2024

Yes, I suspect this is coming from the new faster way to construct the polynomials in AlgebraicSolving. content_num is not set correctly. I asked @thofma for a possible solution.

@fingolfin fingolfin merged commit e71c2b8 into oscar-system:master Sep 19, 2024
28 checks passed
HechtiDerLachs pushed a commit to HechtiDerLachs/Oscar.jl that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2024
Co-authored-by: Lars Göttgens <lars.goettgens@rwth-aachen.de>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rings/solving.jl: Tests getting stuck / taking very long
4 participants