On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:02 AM Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> See this example, after multiple casts, the code directly accesses
> VecScatter_MPI_General's members, with an assumption that from->n is the
> total number of receive processors. When I separate intranode / internode
> communications, I have to maintain this assumption.
>
> This is a good example. VecScatter is a flagrant rule violator. It should
be rewritten with a proper API
to obtain this data.

And if one was going to rewrite it, my personal prejudice would be to try
and replace the communication
part with implementations of PetscSF. Right now SF can handle different
data types (Scatter cannot), but
Scatter has many more modes of communication, such as Alltoall, whereas SF
only has p2p and window.

   Matt

> 385: *PetscErrorCode 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscErrorCode.html#PetscErrorCode>
>  MatMatMultNumeric_MPIDense(Mat 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/Mat.html#Mat>
>  A,Mat 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/Mat.html#Mat>
>  B,Mat 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/Mat.html#Mat>
>  C)*386: {
>
> 389:   Mat_MPIAIJ             *aij = (Mat_MPIAIJ*) A->data;
> 393:   VecScatter 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Vec/VecScatter.html#VecScatter>
>              ctx   = aij->Mvctx;394:   VecScatter_MPI_General *from = 
> (VecScatter_MPI_General*) ctx->fromdata;395:   VecScatter_MPI_General *to   = 
> (VecScatter_MPI_General*) ctx->todata;
> 411:   PetscMalloc4 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscMalloc4.html#PetscMalloc4>(B->cmap->N*from->starts[from->n],&contents->rvalues,412:
>                        B->cmap->N*to->starts[to->n],&contents->svalues,413:   
>                     from->n,&contents->rwaits,414:                       
> to->n,&contents->swaits);
>
>
> --Junchao Zhang
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:33 PM Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:29 PM Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems we do not have naming conventions for private members.
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure I understand. There are no public members. For private
>> functions, we do have
>> a naming convention, but it is newly created, so many of the existing
>> functions break the rules.
>>
>>    Matt
>>
>>
>>> --Junchao Zhang
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:43 PM Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  I met several bugs that remind me to raise this question. In PETSc,
>>>>> object of type A can arbitrarily access object of type B's data. But
>>>>> designer of B may later change the meaning of its data (and of course,
>>>>> update B's interfaces, which are usually local to few files). The designer
>>>>> may think the job is done, but actually it is not.  He/she has to grep the
>>>>> code to know where its data members are accessed (that is relatively easy
>>>>> to get) and what is the contract, for example, is an array assumed to be
>>>>> sorted (that is hard to know).  With C++, one can use private to minimize
>>>>> data exposure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This just has to be coding discipline. People should not be accessing
>>>> private members.
>>>>
>>>>    Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --Junchao Zhang
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
>>
>

-- 
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

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>

Reply via email to