IntelMKLML(Intel OpenMP) Valgrind memory leak

Lee__Kyungsoo — Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:34 GMT

Hi,

I'm using IntelMKLML 2019.0.5 version with Valgrind. Whenever I compiled it, I got the Valgrind issues like the attached below.

Are they false positives? If not, could you please let me know what went wrong?

Thanks in advance!

---------------------------------------------------

==12495== HEAP SUMMARY:
==12495== in use at exit: 7,875 bytes in 303 blocks
==12495== total heap usage: 35,632 allocs, 35,329 frees, 2,208,839 bytes allocated
==12495==
==12495== 21 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 5 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBDF9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBDFCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 21 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBF49F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBF4CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 21 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 7 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBCA9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBCACF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 42 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 10 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD76D9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD76DCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 42 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 11 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD95F9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD95FCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 63 bytes in 3 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 13 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBD19F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBD1CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 84 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 14 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD96D9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD96DCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 105 bytes in 5 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 15 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBD89F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBD8CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 147 bytes in 7 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 19 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD7669F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD766CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 252 bytes in 12 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 21 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBE69F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBE6CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 420 bytes in 20 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 22 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBFB9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBFBCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 483 bytes in 23 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 24 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD9749F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD974CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 924 bytes in 44 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 25 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDD9669F: ???
==12495== by 0xDD966CF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== 1,575 bytes in 75 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 26 of 27
==12495== at 0x4028120: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==12495== by 0xD37D66C: __intel_sse2_strdup (in /workspace/lib/libiomp5.so)
==12495== by 0xDDBED9F: ???
==12495== by 0xDDBEDCF: ???
==12495==
{
<insert_a_suppression_name_here>
Memcheck:Leak
match-leak-kinds: definite
fun:malloc
fun:__intel_sse2_strdup
obj:*
obj:*
}
==12495== LEAK SUMMARY:
==12495== definitely lost: 4,200 bytes in 200 blocks
==12495== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==12495== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==12495== still reachable: 3,675 bytes in 103 blocks
==12495== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

How could we reproduce the

Gennady_F_Intel — Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:46:43 GMT

How could we reproduce the issue? could you give us the example of the code which we could build and check this memory leakage problem?

Please show us also how did you link against MKL.

are there any updates on this

Gennady_F_Intel — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 08:27:57 GMT

are there any updates on this topic?

Hi Gennady,

Lee__Kyungsoo — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:52:52 GMT

Hi Gennady,

thank you for your follow up. I'm building simple reproducible version now. Will comment here with it soon.

topic How could we reproduce the in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library

IntelMKLML(Intel OpenMP) Valgrind memory leak

How could we reproduce the

are there any updates on this

Hi Gennady,