[petsc-users] DMPlex: Ghost points after DMRefine
Morten Nobel-Jørgensen
mono at mek.dtu.dk
Mon Nov 30 10:24:40 CST 2015
Hi Matt
I don’t think the problem is within Petsc - rather somewhere in my code. When I dump the DMPlex using DMView (ascii-info–detail) the ghost mapping seems to be setup correctly.
Is there a better way to determine if a local point is a ghost point?
The way I iterate the DMPlex is like this:
void iterateDMPlex(DM dm){
Vec coordinates;
DMGetCoordinatesLocal(dm, &coordinates);
PetscSection defaultSection;
DMGetDefaultSection(dm, &defaultSection);
PetscSection coordSection;
DMGetCoordinateSection(dm, &coordSection);
PetscScalar *coords;
VecGetArray(coordinates, &coords);
DM cdm;
DMGetCoordinateDM(dm, &cdm);
// iterate (local) mesh
PetscInt cellsFrom, cellsTo;
std::string s = "";
DMPlexGetHeightStratum(dm, 0, &cellsFrom, &cellsTo);
for (PetscInt i=cellsFrom;i<cellsTo;i++) {
PetscInt edgesSize;
const PetscInt *edgeIndices;
DMPlexGetConeSize(dm, i, &edgesSize);
DMPlexGetCone(dm, i, &edgeIndices);
s = s + "Element: "+std::to_string(i)+"\n";
for (int edgeId = 0;edgeId <edgesSize;edgeId ++){ // ignore edge orientation
PetscInt points = edgeIndices[edgeId];
PetscInt edgePoint = edgeIndices[edgeId];
s = s + "\tEdge: "+std::to_string(edgePoint)+"\n";
PetscInt vertexSize;
const PetscInt *vertexIndices;
DMPlexGetConeSize(dm, edgePoint, &vertexSize);
DMPlexGetCone(dm, edgePoint, &vertexIndices);
for (int j=0;j<vertexSize;j++){
s = s + "\t\tVertex: "+std::to_string(vertexIndices[j]);
s = s + " coords ";
PetscScalar* values;
VecGetValuesSection(coordinates, coordSection,vertexIndices[j],&values);
int dim = 2;
for (int k=0;k<dim;k++){
double coordinate = values[k];
s = s +std::to_string(coordinate)+" ";
}
s = s + (isGhost(cdm, vertexIndices[j])?" ghost":"");
s = s + "\n";
}
}
}
VecRestoreArray(coordinates, &coords);
int rank;
MPI_Comm_rank (PETSC_COMM_WORLD, &rank); // get current process id
PetscSynchronizedPrintf(PETSC_COMM_WORLD,”dmplex iteration rank %d \n %s\n",rank, s.c_str());
PetscSynchronizedFlush(PETSC_COMM_WORLD,PETSC_STDOUT);
}
From: Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com<mailto:knepley at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday 30 November 2015 at 14:08
To: Morten Nobel-Jørgensen <mono at mek.dtu.dk<mailto:mono at mek.dtu.dk>>
Cc: "petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov<mailto:petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov>" <petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov<mailto:petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov>>
Subject: Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex: Ghost points after DMRefine
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Morten Nobel-Jørgensen <mono at mek.dtu.dk<mailto:mono at mek.dtu.dk>> wrote:
I have a very simple unstructured mesh composed of two triangles (four vertices) with one shared edge using a DMPlex:
/|\
/ | \
\ | /
\|/
After distributing this mesh to two processes, each process owns a triangle. However one process owns tree vertices, while the last vertex is owned by the other process.
The problem occurs after uniformly refining the dm. The mesh now looks like this:
/|\
/\|/\
\/|\/
\|/
The new center vertex is now not listed as a ghost vertex but instead exists as two individual points.
Is there any way that this new center vertex could be created as a ghost vertex during refinement?
This could be a bug with the l2g mapping. I do not recreate it when refining, only the SF defining the mapping.
Here is an experiment: do not retrieve the mapping until after the refinement. Do you get what you want? If so,
I can easily fix this by destroying the map when I refine.
Thanks,
Matt
Kind regards,
Morten
Ps. Here are some code snippets for getting global point index and test of point is a ghost point:
int localToGlobal(DM dm, PetscInt point){
const PetscInt* array;
ISLocalToGlobalMapping ltogm;
DMGetLocalToGlobalMapping(dm,<ogm);
ISLocalToGlobalMappingGetIndices(ltogm, &array);
PetscInt res = array[point];
if (res < 0){ // if ghost
res = -res +1;
}
return res;
}
bool isGhost(DM dm, PetscInt point){
const PetscInt* array;
ISLocalToGlobalMapping ltogm;
DMGetLocalToGlobalMapping(dm,<ogm);
ISLocalToGlobalMappingGetIndices(ltogm, &array);
return array[point]<0;
}
--
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-users/attachments/20151130/69394b31/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the petsc-users
mailing list