[petsc-dev] Subcomms

[Matthew Knepley]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> >
> > We can take this to dev, but would you advocate doing this by making new
> comms?
> >
> > > I want blocks of MatNest to be able to reside on subcomms. If that
> happened, inner KSPs for PCFieldSplit could also move to subcomms. PCMG
> should be able to run coarse levels on subcomms.
> >
> > This seems like an excellent source of new and confusing parallel
> errors. How do we control organization of
> > subcomms, compatibility (checking without deadlock), and reporting?
> Should we maintain a relation stored
> > in the communicators (comm graph), or outside?
> >
> > However, I think this is the right move.
>
>    Is now the right time. Shouldn't we wait until MPI's replacement is
> working and do things with that model?


I'm laughing. Am I supposed to be?

  Matt


>
>   Barry
>
> >
> >    Matt
> >
> > --
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120127/e89164f0/attachment.html>