On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 21:47, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Can these split ISs have communicators different from that of > PetscLayout (this is something I use in GASM, > for example)? > I guess I always thought of the field information in PetscLayout as having semantic meaning to the user. I also thought these ISs would be strictly non-overlapping and addressing locally owned values. In that context, there is no particular disadvantage to always using global ISs, and I think it would help keep the code simple. If you are going to solve part of the problem on a sub-communicator, you can define that subcomm as all those processes that have non-empty local part in the IS. If you have a huge number of splits (such that individual splits on longer have semantic meaning), then I think it is a different purpose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110514/ca1f2070/attachment.html>
