On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > 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? I'm laughing. Am I supposed to be? Matt > > 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 > > -- 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/20120127/e89164f0/attachment.html>
