[petsc-users] Richardson with multiplicative MG vs. full MG

[Barry Smith]

   John,

     You are right we do not have completely optimized forms of all variants of the multigrid algorithms. 

     You could make a modification to the routine 

#undef __FUNCT__  
#define __FUNCT__ "PCMGMCycle_Private"
PetscErrorCode PCMGMCycle_Private(PC pc,PC_MG_Levels **mglevelsin,PCRichardsonConvergedReason *reason)
{
  PC_MG          *mg = (PC_MG*)pc->data;
  PC_MG_Levels   *mgc,*mglevels = *mglevelsin;
  PetscErrorCode ierr;
  PetscInt       cycles = (mglevels->level == 1) ? 1 : (PetscInt) mglevels->cycles;

  PetscFunctionBegin;

  if (mglevels->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
  ierr = KSPSolve(mglevels->smoothd,mglevels->b,mglevels->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);  /* pre-smooth */
  if (mglevels->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
  if (mglevels->level) {  /* not the coarsest grid */
    if (mglevels->eventresidual) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels->eventresidual,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    ierr = (*mglevels->residual)(mglevels->A,mglevels->b,mglevels->x,mglevels->r);CHKERRQ(ierr);
    if (mglevels->eventresidual) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels->eventresidual,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}

    /* if on finest level and have convergence criteria set */
    if (mglevels->level == mglevels->levels-1 && mg->ttol && reason) {
      PetscReal rnorm;
      ierr = VecNorm(mglevels->r,NORM_2,&rnorm);CHKERRQ(ierr);
      if (rnorm <= mg->ttol) {
        if (rnorm < mg->abstol) {
          *reason = PCRICHARDSON_CONVERGED_ATOL;
          ierr = PetscInfo2(pc,"Linear solver has converged. Residual norm %G is less than absolute tolerance %G\n",rnorm,mg->abstol);CHKERRQ(ierr);
        } else {
          *reason = PCRICHARDSON_CONVERGED_RTOL;
          ierr = PetscInfo2(pc,"Linear solver has converged. Residual norm %G is less than relative tolerance times initial residual norm %G\n",rnorm,mg->ttol);CHKERRQ(ierr);
        }
        PetscFunctionReturn(0);
      }
    }

    mgc = *(mglevelsin - 1);
    if (mglevels->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    ierr = MatRestrict(mglevels->restrct,mglevels->r,mgc->b);CHKERRQ(ierr);
    if (mglevels->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    ierr = VecSet(mgc->x,0.0);CHKERRQ(ierr);
    while (cycles--) {
      ierr = PCMGMCycle_Private(pc,mglevelsin-1,reason);CHKERRQ(ierr); 
    }
    if (mglevels->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    ierr = MatInterpolateAdd(mglevels->interpolate,mgc->x,mglevels->x,mglevels->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);
    if (mglevels->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    if (mglevels->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
    ierr = KSPSolve(mglevels->smoothu,mglevels->b,mglevels->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);    /* post smooth */
    if (mglevels->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
  }
  PetscFunctionReturn(0);
}

to remove the unneeded computations.

   Barry



On Aug 13, 2012, at 3:39 PM, John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com> wrote:

> What if you wanted to do a full cycle with no pre-smooths instead of a v-cycle?
> 
> John
> 
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> #undef __FUNCT__
>> #define __FUNCT__ "PCMGKCycle_Private"
>> PetscErrorCode PCMGKCycle_Private(PC pc,PC_MG_Levels **mglevels)
>> {
>>  PetscErrorCode ierr;
>>  PetscInt       i,l = mglevels[0]->levels;
>> 
>>  PetscFunctionBegin;
>>  /* restrict the RHS through all levels to coarsest. */
>>  for (i=l-1; i>0; i--){
>>    if (mglevels[i]->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels[i]->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>    ierr = MatRestrict(mglevels[i]->restrct,mglevels[i]->b,mglevels[i-1]->b);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>>    if (mglevels[i]->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels[i]->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>  }
>> 
>>  /* work our way up through the levels */
>>  ierr = VecSet(mglevels[0]->x,0.0);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>>  for (i=0; i<l-1; i++) {
>>    if (mglevels[i]->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels[i]->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>    ierr = KSPSolve(mglevels[i]->smoothd,mglevels[i]->b,mglevels[i]->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>>    if (mglevels[i]->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels[i]->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>    if (mglevels[i+1]->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels[i+1]->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>    ierr = MatInterpolate(mglevels[i+1]->interpolate,mglevels[i]->x,mglevels[i+1]->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>>    if (mglevels[i+1]->eventinterprestrict) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels[i+1]->eventinterprestrict,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>  }
>>  if (mglevels[l-1]->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventBegin(mglevels[l-1]->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>>  ierr = KSPSolve(mglevels[l-1]->smoothd,mglevels[l-1]->b,mglevels[l-1]->x);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>>  if (mglevels[l-1]->eventsmoothsolve) {ierr = PetscLogEventEnd(mglevels[l-1]->eventsmoothsolve,0,0,0,0);CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>> 
>>  PetscFunctionReturn(0);
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 13, 2012, at 3:19 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> Shorthand for this is -pc_mg_type kaskade.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Barry,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for answering my question.  I have another one for you:  it
>>> seems the special case of zero pre-smooths is somewhat non-trivial.
>>> The best I can do is set the pre-smoother to Richardson with PCNONE
>>> and zero as max_its. However, if you aren't careful in setting
>>> KSPSetInitialGuessNonzero this can have unexpected results since the
>>> generic KSPSolve will clobber your solution before it even tries a
>>> convergence criteria (thus ruling out KSPPREONLY).  It also does a
>>> couple of unnecessary residual calculations. Would it be reasonable to
>>> put a zero-iteration special case in KSPSolve so that if you don't
>>> want any iterations it doesn't actually do anything (no setup, no
>>> preconditioner, no residual, no scaling, etc.)?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  John,
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:50 AM, John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I am a little confused about what Richardson means.  If you use
>>>>> multiplicative V-cycle multigrid with Richardson KSP (and no
>>>>> convergence monitor), it sets the applyrichardson operator to
>>>>> PCApplyRichardson_MG, which appears to just run V-cycles until
>>>>> convergence.
>>>> 
>>>>     Yes, this is correct.
>>>> 
>>>>> As far as I can tell, it doesn't ever update according
>>>>> to the documented
>>>>> 
>>>>> x^{n+1} = x^{n} + scale*B(b - A x^{n})
>>>>> 
>>>>      In exact arithmetic it is actually "implicitly" doing exactly this update.  It is difficult to see why this is true generally (because B is rather complicated for multigrid) but if you consider only two levels with a direct solver on the coarse grid and SSOR as the pre and post smooth you can write out the formulas and map back and forth between the two forms.  The reason for the PCApplyRichardson_ forms is because they are a bit more efficient than  separating out the action of B and then doing the update as above.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> If on the other hand you use full MG, it does update according to the
>>>>> above formula.  This also happens if you set a convergence monitor.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can see how multiplicative V-cycle with Richardson is simply using
>>>>> multigrid as a solver.  What I don't understand is how full MG with
>>>>> Richardson is using multigrid as a solver, because it is using the
>>>>> update formula above in between cycles..  Shouldn't there be a
>>>>> applyrichardson for full multigrid as well?  If not, why?
>>>> 
>>>>    I think there could be a applyRichardson for full multigrid but it would be kind of complicated and would not benefit much because the amount of work in a full multigrid step is much higher so the savings would be a much lower percentage than with V cycle.
>>>> 
>>>>   Barry
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> John
>>>> 
>>> 
>>