[petsc-users] KSP changes for successive solver

Dave May dave.mayhem23 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 6 04:17:24 CDT 2015

>    I agree with you more than the "consensus". I think the consensus does
> it just because it is perceived as too difficult or we don't have the right
> infrastructure to do it "correctly"
> >
> > In the end that is what I want to do. :D
> >
> > I would be happy to contribute a similar repartitioning preconditioner
> to petsc.
>    We'd love to have this reduced processor repartitioning for both
> DMDA/PCMG and for PCGAMG in PETSc.

Hi Barry,

I've created a pull-request which defines such a preconditiner.

I've tentatively called it SemiRedundant - but I don't think it is a great
in the sense it doesn't really describe what the preconditioner actually
can do.
I hate naming things. Possibly "Repart" or "Repartition" would be better
Given the existence of "Redistribute", "Redundant", it is likely that it
will be hard
for a new user to know what the actual difference is between all these

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20150806/09d051e4/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-users mailing list