On 28.12.2011 16:27, Jed Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 09:10, Alexander Grayver > <agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de <mailto:agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de>> wrote: > > So if I understood it right, I put diff you gave in file > pastix_patch in petsc-dev dir and called: > > lib/petsc-dev> patch -Np1 < pastix_patch > > And built petsc again. Now > > lib/petsc-dev> hg diff src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/pastix/pastix.c > > > Yes, the patch applied correctly. > > > So I guess it's patched correctly? > Because I don't see much difference in output. Please find it > attached. > Did I make something wrong? > > > Hmm, it is hard-coded to say that the matrix is symmetric. We are > setting API_FACT_LU (you could check that it has not been changed by > attaching a debugger in MatFactorNumeric_PaStiX and printing > lu->iparm[IPARM_FACTORIZATION]). Maybe PaStiX is ignoring this and > always doing LLt instead.
No. I checked, the API_FACT_LU is set correctly. > We probably need to set API_PARM_LDLT (and possibly API_PARM_LU, but > they claim that only does static pivoting, which might still be a > problem). You could try adding this to > src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/pastix/pastix.c or ask the PaStiX developers > what they suggest for symmetric indefinite systems. I tried API_PARM_LDLT, but it has no effect. Thanks for help, I will consider writing PaStiX team. Regards, Alexander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111228/564fee4e/attachment.html>
