Code structuring - Communicator

[Barry Smith]

    You cannot call PetscInitialize() twice.

    Barry

On May 27, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Amit.Itagi at seagate.com wrote:

> Barry,
>
> I got a part of what I was trying to do (sub-communicator etc.),  
> working.
> Now suppose I want to repeat a calculation with a different input, I  
> have
> two ways of doing it (based on what I have coded).
>
> 1)
>
> MPI_Initialize
> Create a group using MPI_Comm_group
> Create several sub-groups and sub-communicators using MPI_Group_Incl  
> and
> MPI_Comm_create
> Assign the sub-communicator to PETSC_COMM_WORLD
> // Calculation 1
> {
> Do PetscInitialize
> Perform the calculation
> Do PetscFinalize
> }
> // Calculation 2
> {
> Do PetscInitialize
> Perform the calculation
> Do PetscFinalize
> }
> Do MPI_finalize
>
> 2)
>
> MPI_Initialize
> Create a group using MPI_Comm_group
> Create several sub-groups and sub-communicators using MPI_Group_Incl  
> and
> MPI_Comm_create
> Assign the sub-communicator to PETSC_COMM_WORLD
> Do PetscInitialize
> // Calculation 1
> {
> Perform the calculation
> }
> // Calculation 2
> {
> Perform the calculation
> }
> Do PetscFinalize
> Do MPI_finalize
>
>
> The first method crashes. I am trying to understand why.  The  
> documentation
> says that PetscFinalize calls MPI_finalize only if MPI_Initialize is  
> not
> called before PetscInitialize. In my case, is PetscFinalize  
> destroying the
> sub-communicators ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rgds,
> Amit
>
>
>
>
>
>             Barry Smith
>             <bsmith at mcs.anl.g
>              
> ov>                                                        To
>             Sent by:                  petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov
>             owner-petsc- 
> users                                          cc
>             @mcs.anl.gov
>             No Phone Info                                          
> Subject
>             Available                 Re: Code structuring -  
> Communicator
>
>
>             05/09/2008 03:07
>             PM
>
>
>             Please respond to
>             petsc-users at mcs.a
>                  nl.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    There are many ways to do this, most of them involve using MPI to
> construct subcommunicators
> for the various sub parallel tasks. You very likely want to keep
> PetscInitialize() at
> the very beginning of the program; you would not write the calls in
> terms of
> PETSC_COMM_WORLD or MPI_COMM_WORLD, rather you would use the
> subcommunicators to create the objects.
>
>    An alternative approach is to look at the manual page for
> PetscOpenMPMerge(), PetscOpenMPRun(),
> PetscOpenMPNew() in petsc-dev. These allow a simple master-worker
> model of parallelism
> with PETSc with a bunch of masters that can work together (instead of
> just one master) and each
> master controls a bunch of workers. The code in src/ksp/pc/impls/
> openmp uses this code.
>
> Note that OpenMP has NOTHING to do with OpenMP the standard. Also I
> don't really have
> any support for Fortran, I hope you use C/C++. Comments welcome. It
> sounds like this matches
> what you need. It's pretty cool,  but underdeveloped.
>
>    Barry
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Amit.Itagi at seagate.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question about the Petsc communicator. I have a petsc  
>> program
>> "foo" which essentially runs in parallel and gives me
>> y=f(x1,x2,...), where
>> y is an output parameter and xi's are input parameters. Suppose, I
>> want to
>> run a parallel optimizer for the input parameters. I am looking at  
>> the
>> following functionality. I submit the optimizer job on 16 processors
>> (using
>> "mpiexec -np 16 progName"). The optimizer should then submit 4 runs  
>> of
>> "foo", each running parallely on 4 processors. "foo" will be written
>> as a
>> function and not as a main program in this case. How can I get this
>> functionality using Petsc ? Should PetscInitialize be called in the
>> optimizer, or in each foo run ? If PetscInitialize is called in the
>> optimizer, is there a way to make the foo function run only on a
>> subset of
>> the 16 processors ?
>>
>> May be, I haven't done a good job of explaining my problem. Let me
>> know if
>> you need any clarifications.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Rgds,
>> Amit
>>
>
>
>
>