<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:45 AM Anton Popov <<a href="mailto:popov@uni-mainz.de">popov@uni-mainz.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi Barry & Matt,<br>
<br>
thanks for your quick response. These options were exactly what I
needed and expected:<br>
<br>
-pc_mg_galerkin pmat<br>
-pc_use_amat false<br>
<br>
I just assumed that it’s a default behavior of the PC object.<br>
<br>
So to clarify my case, I don't use nonlinear multigrid. Galerkin
is expected to deal with Pmat only, and it's enough if Amat
implements a matrix-vector product for the Krylov accelerator.<br>
<br>
Matt, the reason for switching Amat during the iteration is a
quite common Picard-Newton combination. Jacobian matrix gives
accurate updates close to the solution, but is rather unstable far
form the solution. Picard matrix (approximate Jacobian) is quite
the opposite – it’s kind of stable, but slow. So the idea is to
begin the iteration with Picard matrix, and switch to the Jacobian
later.<br>
<br>
If the assembled matrices are used, then the standard SNES
interface is just perfect. I can decide how to fill the matrices.
But I don’t bother with Jacobian assembly and want to use a
built-in MFFD approximation instead. I did quite a few tests
previously and figured out that MFFD is practically the same as
closed-from matrix-free Jacobian for the later stages of the
iteration. The Picard matrix still does a good job as a
preconditioner. But it is important to start the iteration with
Picard and only change to MFFD later.<br>
<br>
Is my workaround with the shell matrix acceptable, or there is a
better solution?</p></div></blockquote><div>It is fine. However, I wonder if you have time to try out a slightly different solution. I experimented with this, and it worked as well for me as switching between</div><div>Picard and Newton. I made a SNESCOMPOSITE with Picard and Newton as the two components. I made Newton take a single step, and then adjusted the</div><div>Picard steps a little.The additiveoptimal variant always converged for me, and took the same or less time. I also used left preconditioning of Picard by Newton,</div><div>but that is more involved, and for my simple problem was not a lot better. The advantage I see is that both solves are not plain vanilla, and you do not have any</div><div>switching logic.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div> Matt</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
Thanks,<br>
Anton <br>
</p>
<div>On 13.06.21 20:52, Barry Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Anton,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-pc_mg_galerkin pmat
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Though it seems simple, there is some subtly in
swapping out matrices with SNES.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> When using multigrid with SNES there are at least
five distinct uses of the Jacobian operator. </div>
<div>
<ol>
<ul>
<li>Perform matrix-vector product in line search to
check Wolf sufficient decrease convergence criteria</li>
<li>Perform the matrix-vector product for the
Krylov accelerator of the system</li>
<li>Perform smoothing on the finest level of MG</li>
<li>Perform the matrix-vector product needed on the
finest level of MG to compute the residual that will be
restricted to the coarser level of multigrid</li>
<li>When using Galerkin products to compute the
coarser grid operator performing the Galerkin matrix
triple product</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>when one swaps out the mat, which of these do they
wish to change? The first two seem to naturally go together as
do the last three. In your case I presume you want to swap for
the first two, but always use pmat for the last three? To
achieve this you will also need -pc_use_amat false</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you run with -info and -snes_view it will print
out some of the information about which operator it is using
for each case, but probably not all of them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Note: if the pmat is actually an accurate
computation of the Jacobian then it is likely best not to ever
use a matrix-free product. It is only when pmat is
approximated in some specific way that using the matrix-free
product would be useful to insure the "Newton" method actually
computes a Newton step.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Barry</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jun 13, 2021, at 11:21 AM, Matthew Knepley
<<a href="mailto:knepley@gmail.com" target="_blank">knepley@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 10:55 AM
Anton Popov <<a href="mailto:popov@uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">popov@uni-mainz.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I want a simple(?) thing. I want to decide and be
able to assign the <br>
Jacobian matrix (Amat) on the fly within the
FormJacobian function (i.e. <br>
during Newton iteration) to one of the following
options:<br>
<br>
1) built-in MFFD approximation<br>
2) assembled preconditioner matrix (Pmat)<br>
<br>
I have not found this scenario demonstrated in any
example, therefore <br>
I’m asking how to do that.<br>
<br>
Currently I do the following:<br>
<br>
1) setup Amat as a shell matrix with a MATOP_MULT
operation that simply <br>
retrieves a matrix object form its context and calls
MatMult on it.<br>
<br>
2) if I need MFFD, I put a matrix generated with
MatCreateSNESMF in the <br>
Amat context (of course I also call
MatMFFDComputeJacobian before that).<br>
<br>
3) if I need Pmat, I simply put Pmat in the Amat
context.<br>
<br>
4) call MatAssemblyBegin/End on Amat<br>
<br>
So far so good.<br>
<br>
However, shell Amat and assembled Pmat generate a
problem if Galerkin <br>
multigrid is requested as a preconditioner (I just
test on 1 CPU):<br>
<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: MatPtAP requires A, shell, to be
compatible with P, <br>
seqaij (Misses composed function
MatPtAP_shell_seqaij_C)<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #1 MatPtAP()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #2 MatGalerkin()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #3 PCSetUp_MG()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #4 PCSetUp()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #5 KSPSetUp()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #6 KSPSolve()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #7 SNESSolve_NEWTONLS()<br>
[0]PETSC ERROR: #8 SNESSolve()<br>
<br>
It seems like PETSc tries to apply Galerkin
coarsening to the shell Amat <br>
matrix instead of the assembled Pmat. Why?<br>
<br>
Pmat is internally generated by SNES using a DMDA
attached to SNES, so <br>
it has everything to define Galerkin coarsening. And
it actually works <br>
if I just get rid of the shell Amat.<br>
<br>
I can get around this problem by wrapping a PC
object in a shell matrix <br>
and pass it as Pmat. This is a rather ugly approach,
so I wonder how to <br>
resolve the situation in a better way, if it is
possible.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Anton,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You are correct that there is no
specific test, so I can believe that a bug might be
lurking here.</div>
<div>I believe the way it is supposed to work
is that you set the type of Galerkin coarsening that
you</div>
<div>want</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <a href="https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/PC/PCMGSetGalerkin.html" target="_blank">https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/PC/PCMGSetGalerkin.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I am thinking you want 'pmat' only,
and you would be in charge of making the coarse MFFD
operator</div>
<div>and telling PCMG about it. I could
imagine that you might want us to automatically do
that, but we would</div>
<div>need some way to know that it is MFFD,
and with the scheme above we do not have that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is the advantage of switching
representations during the Newton iteration?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Matt</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Thanks.<br>
Anton<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What most experimenters take
for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting
than any results to which their
experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/" target="_blank">https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>-- Norbert Wiener</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/" target="_blank">https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>