<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Hui Zhang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com">mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><div>On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:41 AM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Hui Zhang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com" target="_blank">mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I have a new problem: the results from ASM and GASM are different and it seems<div>GASM has something wrong with SetModifySubMatrices. Numerical tests are with </div><div>each subdomain supported only by one subdomain. There are no problems when</div>
<div>I did not modify submatrices. But when I modify submatrices, there are problems</div><div>with GASM but no problems with ASM. </div><div><br></div><div>For example, I use two subdomains. In the first case each subdomain is supported by</div>
<div>one processor and there seems no problem with GASM. But when I use run my program </div><div>with only one proc. so that it supports both of the two subdomains, the iteration </div><div>number is different from the first case and is much larger. On the other hand</div>
<div>ASM has no such problem.</div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Are the solutions the same?</div><div>What problem are you solving?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes, the solutions are the same. That's why ASM gives the same results with one or</div>
<div>two processors. But GASM did not. </div></div></div></blockquote><div>Sorry, I wasn't clear: ASM and GASM produced different solutions in the case of two domains per processor?</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>I'm solving the Helmholtz equation. Maybe </div><div>I can prepare a simpler example to show this difference.</div></div></div></blockquote><div>That would be helpful. </div>
<div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Dmitry. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div class="h5"><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Dmitry. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div><br><div><br><div><div>On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>You should be able to. </div>
<div>This behavior is the same as in PCASM,</div><div>except in GASM the matrices live on subcommunicators.</div><div>I am in transit right now, but I can take a closer look in Friday.</div><div><br></div><div>Dmitry<br>
<br>
<br></div><div><br>On Feb 15, 2012, at 8:07, Hui Zhang <<a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com" target="_blank">mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Hui Zhang wrote:</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Dmitry,<div><br></div><div>thanks a lot! Currently, I'm not using ISColoring. Just comes another question</div><div>on PCGASMSetModifySubMatrices(). The user provided function has the prototype</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> func (</span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><a>PC</a></span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> pc,</span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><a>PetscInt</a></span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> nsub,</span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><a>IS</a></span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> *row,</span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><a>IS</a></span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> *col,</span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><a>Mat</a></span><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"> *submat,void *ctx);</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">I think the coloumns from the parameter 'col' are always the same <font face="monospace">as the rows </font></span></div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="monospace">from the parameter 'row'. Because PCGASMSetLocalSubdomains() only accepts </font></span></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="monospace">index sets but not rows and columns. Has I misunderstood something?</font></span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As I tested, the row and col are always the same. </div><div><br></div><div>I have a new question. Am I allowed to SetLocalToGlobalMapping() for the submat's</div><div>in the above func()?</div>
<div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div>Hui</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="monospace"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="monospace">thanks,</font></span></div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="monospace">Hui</font></span></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 11, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">Yes, that's right.<div>
There is no good way to help the user assemble the subdomains at the moment beyond the 2D stuff.</div><div>It is expected that they are generated from mesh subdomains.</div><div>Each IS does carry the subdomains subcomm.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There is ISColoringToList() that is supposed to convert a "coloring" of indices to an array of ISs,</div><div>each having the indices with the same color and the subcomm that supports that color. It is</div>
<div>largely untested, though. You could try using it and give us feedback on any problems you encounter.</div><div><br></div><div>Dmitry.</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Hui Zhang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com" target="_blank">mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">About PCGASMSetLocalSubdomains(), in the case of one subdomain supported by<br>
multiple processors, shall I always create the arguments 'is[s]' and 'is_local[s]'<br>
in a subcommunicator consisting of processors supporting the subdomain 's'?<br>
<br>
The source code of PCGASMCreateSubdomains2D() seemingly does so.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Hui<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br>