<div dir="ltr">Thanks Jed for the advice. Actually I looked at the code and I think this was the only place I had made this implicit assumption (but the most important place). As a matter of fact, I make my vectors layout according to the AO that I get from partitioning. I think my main mistake was that I had assumed the partitioning uses the same ordering as the PETSc ordering.<div>
<br></div><div>The code seems to run correctly now :)</div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 17:25, Mohammad Mirzadeh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mirzadeh@gmail.com" target="_blank">mirzadeh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Just to make sure though, is my assumption on the natural ordering of PETSc correct?</blockquote></div><br></div><div>Yes, but please don't write code that depends on that. It's plenty easy to query the local size or the sizes/starts of other processes.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>