Hong,
I get all the problems gone and valgrind-clean output if I specify this:
-mat_superlu_dist_fact SamePattern_SameRowPerm
What does SamePattern_SameRowPerm actually mean?
Row permutations are for large diagonal, column permutations are for
sparsity, right?
Will it skip subsequent matrix permutations for large diagonal even if
matrix values change significantly?
Surprisingly everything works even with:
-mat_superlu_dist_colperm PARMETIS
-mat_superlu_dist_parsymbfact TRUE
Thanks,
Anton
On 10/24/2016 09:06 PM, Hong wrote:
Anton:
If replacing superlu_dist with mumps, does your code work?
yes
You may use mumps in your code, or tests different options for
superlu_dist:
-mat_superlu_dist_equil: <TRUE> Equilibrate matrix (None)
-mat_superlu_dist_rowperm <LargeDiag> Row permutation (choose one
of) LargeDiag NATURAL (None)
-mat_superlu_dist_colperm <METIS_AT_PLUS_A> Column permutation
(choose one of) NATURAL MMD_AT_PLUS_A MMD_ATA METIS_AT_PLUS_A PARMETIS
(None)
-mat_superlu_dist_replacetinypivot: <FALSE> Replace tiny pivots (None)
-mat_superlu_dist_parsymbfact: <FALSE> Parallel symbolic
factorization (None)
-mat_superlu_dist_fact <SamePattern> Sparsity pattern for repeated
matrix factorization (choose one of) SamePattern
SamePattern_SameRowPerm (None)
The options inside <> are defaults. You may try others. This might
help narrow down the bug.
Hong
Hong
On 10/24/2016 05:47 PM, Hong wrote:
Barry,
Your change indeed fixed the error of his testing code.
As Satish tested, on your branch, ex16 runs smooth.
I do not understand why on maint or master branch, ex16
creases inside superlu_dist, but not with mumps.
I also confirm that ex16 runs fine with latest fix, but
unfortunately not my code.
This is something to be expected, since my code preallocates
once in the beginning. So there is no way it can be affected
by multiple preallocations. Subsequently I only do matrix
assembly, that makes sure structure doesn't change (set to
get error otherwise).
Summary: we don't have a simple test code to debug superlu
issue anymore.
Anton
Hong
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Satish Balay
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> > [Or perhaps Hong is using a different test code and is
observing bugs
> > with superlu_dist interface..]
>
> She states that her test does a NEW MatCreate() for
each matrix load (I cut and pasted it in the email I
just sent). The bug I fixed was only related to using
the SAME matrix from one MatLoad() in another MatLoad().
Ah - ok.. Sorry - wasn't thinking clearly :(
Satish
