[petsc-dev] P3DFFT is an open-source numerical library providing highly scalable implementation of 3D spectral transforms

Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 16:25:22 CDT 2014

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:

> Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:
> >>   In theory, with this one could write very efficient parallel 3d
> Poisson
> >> solvers in PETSc for boxes, which is an important special case that
> >> does not currently support.
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't you just use MG?
> FFT is O(n log n) and O(n/p (log n) (log p)) parallel complexity while
> MG is O(n) and O(n/p log p + log^2 n).  The presence of the (log n)^2
> term is one reason some people like to say that MG won't scale, but FFT
> or FMM will (Edelman's 1997 paper forecasts that FFT will eventually be
> replaced by FMM).
> FMG for a second order discretization is okay with a Cheby/Jacobi 2,1
> cycle, so 4 visits to the fine grid and less than 5 work units in total
> (you can do slightly better with GS).  If the per-process size is large,
> fine-grid memory bandwidth to apply the stencil operations is the
> primary cost, followed by a couple more visits of vector work, mostly
> because fusing operations is inconvenient.  How does this compare with
> the log n term in FFT complexity?

I was thinking that the 3x would dissolve pretty quickly for the problem
being talked about in the blurb using the analysis above, but I guess we
to check.


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/20140820/cd16a6d6/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list