Matthew Overholt <[email protected]> writes:

> Barry,
>
> Subsequent tests with the same code and a problem (input) having a much
> smaller vertex (equation) count (i.e. a much smaller matrix to invert for
> the solution) have NOT had PetscCommDuplicate() account for any significant
> time, so I'm not surprised that your test didn't find any problem.

Can you re-run the large and small configurations with the same
code/environment and resend those logs?  PetscCommDuplicate has nothing
to do with the problem size, so any difference in cost must be indirect,
though attribute access should be simple and independent.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to