On Jan 27, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > We can take this to dev, but would you advocate doing this by making new > comms? > > > I want blocks of MatNest to be able to reside on subcomms. If that > > happened, inner KSPs for PCFieldSplit could also move to subcomms. PCMG > > should be able to run coarse levels on subcomms. > > This seems like an excellent source of new and confusing parallel errors. How > do we control organization of > subcomms, compatibility (checking without deadlock), and reporting? Should we > maintain a relation stored > in the communicators (comm graph), or outside? > > However, I think this is the right move.
Is now the right time. Shouldn't we wait until MPI's replacement is working and do things with that model? Barry > > Matt > > -- > 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
