On 03/11/2016 11:25 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
Boris,
We will add this support to the DMShell and its usage from PCMG within a
few days.
Barry
Tanks Barry. This is super-fast and very helpful.
Cheers,
Anton
On Mar 11, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Boris Kaus <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mar 11, 2016, at 8:53 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Dave May <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11 March 2016 at 18:11, anton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi team,
I'm implementing staggered grid in a PETSc-canonical way, trying to build a
custom DM object, attach it to SNES, that should later transfered it further to
KSP and PC.
Yet, the Galerking coarsening for staggered grid is non-symmetric. The question
is how possible is it that DMShellSetCreateRestriction can be implemented and
included in 3.7 release?
It's a little more work than just adding a new method within the DM and a new
APIs for DMCreateRestriction() and DMShellSetCreateRestriction().
PCMG needs to be modified to call DMCreateRestriction().
Dave is correct. Currently, PCMG only calls DMCreateInterpolation(). We would
need to add a DMCreateRestriction() call.
The PCMG object already uses a restriction operator that is different from the
interpolation parameter if it is specified with PCMGSetRestriction.
For consistency, one would expect a similar DMCreateRestriction object, not? I
realize that this is not relevant for FEM codes, but for staggered FD it makes
quite some difference.
Other suggestions on how to best integrate staggered finite differences within
the current PETSc framework are ofcourse also highly welcome.
Our current thinking was to pack it into a DMSHELL (which has the problem of
not having a restriction interface).
thanks,
Boris
Thanks,
Matt
Please, please.
Thanks,
Anton
--
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
