[petsc-dev] DMGetMatrix --> DMGetMatrices?

[Dmitry Karpeev]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 17:08, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > I think it's completely natural for a DM to assemble two operators --
> the discretizations for the two are likely to be related anyway -- as soon
> as we decide that it's natural for KSP to take in two matrices and, more
> importantly, for the callback set with DMSetJacobian() to compute two
> matrices: if a DM knows how to compute  two "Jacobians",
>
>     DM doesn't/shouldn't know how to compute two Jacobians. Where did you
> get that from?
>

 Here's the current declaration of DMSetJacobian:
 PetscErrorCode  DMSetJacobian(DM dm,PetscErrorCode
(*f)(DM,Vec,Mat,Mat,MatStructure*))
This attaches (to a single DM) a callback that computes *two* matrices,
just like SNES/KSP would want.
Dmitry.

>
> > why wouldn't it know how to create/preallocate the two corresponding
> matrices?
>
>
>    The reason I don't like having the single DM doing this is that one
> could use very different beasties to do the true Jacobian and
> preconditioner (not just a simple stencil change) and shoving that stuff
> into a single DM is unnatural. For example true problem is on an
> unstructured grid, preconditioner problem on a simplier structured grid.
>
>
> >
> > Lots of functions get messy if the DM has multiple ways to do something.
> Should DMCreateLocalVector() use the full stencil or the preconditioning
> stencil, what should DMGlobalToLocalBegin() be updating, etc.
> >
> > Barry's solution of having separate DMs sounds cleaner to me, at least
> modulo needing conventions about which DM on which to PetscObjectCompose()
> things needed by certain callbacks (e.g. in the FAS with TS stuff I'm
> doing).
>
>    Clean that up and provide a formal way to do those callbacks that don't
> use kludgy PetscObjectCompose() or PetscObjectComposeFunction()
>
>   Barry
>
> Yes, it will be slightly painful to pass two DM into the KSP and PC and
> track them in multigrid but we do do that with the two operators already so
> using two DM seems very natural.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120210/4a60359d/attachment.html>