{compiler,lang}[GCCcore/15.2.0,foss/2026.1] numba v0.65.1, LLVM v20.1.8 /w llvmlite - #26383
Conversation
Updated software
|
|
As mentioned in #26378, I'd heavily suggest to go with a minimal LLVM using a While that one still contains some shared libraries (partially even without a version), it's very unlikely that one uses this to build something else by mistake. $ find $EBROOTLLVM/ -name "*.so"
LLVM/14.0.6-GCCcore-13.3.0-llvmlite/lib/libLTO.so
LLVM/14.0.6-GCCcore-13.3.0-llvmlite/lib/libLLVM-14.0.6.so
LLVM/14.0.6-GCCcore-13.3.0-llvmlite/lib/libLLVM.so
LLVM/14.0.6-GCCcore-13.3.0-llvmlite/lib/libLLVM-14.so
LLVM/14.0.6-GCCcore-13.3.0-llvmlite/lib/libRemarks.so |
| # Limit numba.runtests worker processes to avoid multiprocessing/forkserver hangs | ||
| local_test_workers = '$(( %(parallel)s > 8 ? 4 : (%(parallel)s + 1) / 2 ))' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This wasn't required in prior versions of numba.
Did you encounter these issues with only this numba version?
Also, why hard limit to 8 threads?
Does this affect users using numba later on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are some tests which needs NUMBA_NUM_THREADS=2 (tests that call set_num_threads(2)) and it does not work with %(parallel)s in runtest for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm... lets keep it for now.
I'll also do some testing with that once we use the minimal LLVM instead of a full one.
Running with max. 8 threads should probably still be fine. The tests do not take too long.
We should really make sure that there is not some kind of regression impacting users of the module later on. That would be unfortunate...
We've quickly discussed this in today's EasyBuild conf call, and I agree with @Thyre: introducing an older LLVM version is a necessary evil here, but it should be a stripped down minimal easyconfig, to avoid that it would cause trouble in other contexts (like combining software X that requires LLVM 21.x as runtime dep with software Y which requires an older LLVM 20.x as build dependency, for example). @pavelToman Can you look into reworking the LLVM 20.x easyconfig included in here to be simular to the |
|
@Thyre could you please check the easyconfig for LLVM-llvmlite? I am not sure about skip all patches and also if the |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@pavelToman: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 4869615436 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Test report by @pavelToman |
|
Test report by @pavelToman |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@pavelToman: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 4877775926 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Test report by @pavelToman |
|
Just FYI -- numba v0.66 (using LLVM 22) is out now: https://github.com/numba/numba/releases/tag/0.66.0 |
|
@pavelToman, can you clean up the LLVM EasyConfig and fix the CI failures? |
|
Test report by @Thyre |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@Thyre: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 4894069651 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
LGTM, if we go for this numba version. |
|
@Thyre I have discussed this with Kenneth on today meeting, and we should stick to numba-0.65.1 |
Indeed, I see strong need to bump this to numba 0.66.0, which was just released 2 days ago (and which requires LLVM 22.x, so would be a significant extra effort) |
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
Going in, thanks @pavelToman! |
(created using
eb --new-pr)extracted from PR #26378