FWIW, I’ve fixed MatMatMult and MatTransposeMatMult here https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/commit/93d7d1d6d29b0d66b5629a261178b832a925de80 <https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/commit/93d7d1d6d29b0d66b5629a261178b832a925de80> (with MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX). I believe there is something not right in your MR (2032) with MAT_REUSE_MATRIX (without having called MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX first), cf. https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/merge_requests/2069#note_220269898 <https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/merge_requests/2069#note_220269898>. Of course, I’d love to be proved wrong!
Thanks, Pierre > On 22 Sep 2019, at 5:04 PM, Zhang, Hong <hzh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > I'll check it tomorrow. > Hong > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:04 AM Pierre Jolivet via petsc-dev > <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov <mailto:petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote: > Jed, > I’m not sure how easy it is to put more than a few lines of code on GitLab, > so I’ll just send the (tiny) source here, as a follow-up of our discussion > https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/merge_requests/2069#note_220229648 > <https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/merge_requests/2069#note_220229648>. > Please find attached a .cpp showing the brokenness of C=A*B with A of type > MPIAIJ and B of type MPIDense when the LDA of B is not equal to its number of > local rows. > It does [[1,1];[1,1]] * [[0,1,2,3];[0,1,2,3]] > C should be equal to 2*B, but it’s not, unless lda = m (= 1). > Mat Object: 2 MPI processes > type: mpidense > 0.0000000000000000e+00 1.0000000000000000e+00 2.0000000000000000e+00 > 3.0000000000000000e+00 > 0.0000000000000000e+00 1.0000000000000000e+00 2.0000000000000000e+00 > 3.0000000000000000e+00 > > If you change Bm here > https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-dev/src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/mpimatmatmult.c.html#line549 > > <https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-dev/src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/mpimatmatmult.c.html#line549> > to the LDA of B, you’ll get the correct result. > Mat Object: 2 MPI processes > type: mpidense > 0.0000000000000000e+00 2.0000000000000000e+00 4.0000000000000000e+00 > 6.0000000000000000e+00 > 0.0000000000000000e+00 2.0000000000000000e+00 4.0000000000000000e+00 > 6.0000000000000000e+00 > > Unfortunately, w.r.t. MR 2069, I still don’t get the same results with a > plain view LDA > m (KO) and a view + duplicate LDA = m (OK). > So there might be something else to fix (or this might not even be a correct > fix), but the only reproducer I have right now is the full solver. > > Thanks, > Pierre >
