In the simple case where one has access to the solver object (say a KSP, could be SNES or TS) one can simply write two routines MySetMonitors() and MyClearMonitors() that set (or clear) one or more monitors onto the solver and the user calls MySetMonitor(ksp) and MyClearMonitor() when they want some monitoring.
Since you know this, I assume your question is really about the more difficult case where you have a collection of solver objects inside a PCMG/PCFIELDSPLIT/... composition and want to be able to trigger monitoring of some KSP solvers inside but you don't have straightforward access to the individual KSPs? If the PCMG/PCFIELDSPLIT... composition was constructed from a "base" DM and sub-DMs and/or refine/coarsen DMs that are obtained from that base DM then you are suggesting attaching the monitor information (somehow) to the base DM, it gets propagated to the other DMs and then to each appropriate KSP? Now we see that your suggestion actually has two distinct parts 1) ability to attach monitors to a DM and then have the KSP/SNES/TS grab them from the DM 2) ability to attach "stuff" to a DM with enough additional information (logic) so that the "parts of" that "stuff" gets conveyed to subDMs and/or refine/coarsen DMs when (if) they are created, recursively. For example DMSetStuff(DM,stuff,"if DM is refined give stuff to newly created DM") DMSetStuff(DM,stuff,"if DM is refined give stuff to newly created DM and then if newly created DM is split then give stuff to the newly created split DM") etc etc My thoughts. 1)You are correct we don't have a good way programatic way of getting stuff into the inner KSPs in nested solvers. This is made difficult by the facts that a) different decompositions can happen based on runtime options etc. b) one doesn't know the actual decomposition in advance, c) the "tree" of solvers created happens "lazily" and it is indeterminant when all the solvers in the tree are actually all created and then setup and then used. 2) You are correct that in theory (though not yet in practice) one can provide a "base" DM that then gets sliced and diced and refined and coarsened to create a tree of DMs that corresponds to the tree of solvers with one DM for each solver. An alternative to what you suggest of attaching the stuff and logic for passing it down through the DMs would be to attach the stuff to solver (KSP/SNES/TS) and have the stuff distributed to the newly created sub solvers. For example: KSP/PCSetStuff(KSP,stuff,"if PC is fieldsplit give stuff to first/second/whatever split created KSP") KSP/PCSetStuff(KSP,stuff,"if PC is fieldsplit give stuff to first/second/whatever split created KSP if resulting PC is MG give stuff to levels KSP/PC created") etc etc My quick opinion: For something like monitors I like the idea of attaching to the solvers not the DMs since the DMs don't know or care about monitors. One could also do specialized convergence tests etc the same way. Note that I tried to do this function evaluations etc but Jed added the horrible horrible DMKSP crapola to store the function evaluation stuff as it was passed down, I never groked completely why using the KSP directly was impossible. Eventually we need to figure out programatic ways of interacting with the "tree" of solvers in composed solvers; by the command line and prefixes we can do a fairly decent job with the options database. If we allow putting "stuff" and functions in to the options database we could use the options database also as the "programatic" way of interacting with the "tree" of solvers" but .... One could also imagine using XML or JSON etc as the way of getting info into the various levels of the tree of solvers; I believe Trilinos tries to do this (hence a good reason not to waste time on that approach). Barry > On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Should we have a mechanism to save and restore monitor information, so that > monitors > can be dynamically set when solvers are associated with other objects? > > For example, you could associate a monitor with a DM, and then if you call > > SolverSetDM() > > the monitors would be set into the solver. They would also have to be removed > if SetDM() was called again. > > Is this desirable? > > 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
