Dear Marek,
Let's first look at the two distribute_local_to_global calls:
constraint_matrix_phase_constant.distribute_local_to_global(local_matrix,
dof_indices, system_matrix_phase_constant);
constraint_matrix_phase.distribute_local_to_global(local_matrix,
local_v
Hi Bruno,
2016-05-20 9:12 GMT-04:00 Ehsan :
#2 0x75cb614b in dealii::SparsityPattern::reinit
(this=this@entry=0x7fffb498, m=829992, n=829992, max_per_row=8032)
at /deal_II/dealii-8.3.0/source/lac/sparsity_pattern.cc:251
It could be a memory problem. You try to create a matrix
Dear Ce,
I faced a strange problem. With relatively few cells and non-conforming
> triangulation, the assembling process generates new nonzero locations in
> parallel with relatively large amount of processes . It works well in
> serial or with a small number of processes or with conforming
>
wrote:
Dear Martin,
Yes, it works now. Could you please explain why it works in serial or
with a small number of processes?
Best regards,
Ce Qin
2016-05-23 15:27 GMT+08:00 Martin Kronbichler
mailto:kronbichler.mar...@gmail.com>>:
Dear Ce,
I faced a strange problem
Hi Julius,
Is the implementation of the (colored) WorkStream::run() compatible
with a hybrid parallel code-architecture?
Besides checking for the validity of the ranges (as Bruno points out),
there is at least one potential problem as seen from the stack trace:
You cannot write into Trilinos
Dear Niek,
This does indeed look strange. I cannot give an immediate answer
unfortunately. It looks like the problem appears in a single element
layer close to the boundary and does not seem to propagate into the
domain. Can you confirm this? Since I would expect a wrong Neumann
boundary cond
Dear Dustin,
With regard to a lot of tutorial programms I would say that this is
the usual way to work with /DynamicSparsityPatterns/, isn't it?
Yes, the description you give is exactly the way I would choose for the
sparsity pattern.
So back to the question. Running the program the copy oper
Dear Dustin,
How is your computational setup, i.e., how many nonzero entries do
you have in your matrix?
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean the number of
nonzero entries in /SparseMatrix/ or in the /BlockSparsityPattern/ or
in the dynamic one? How can I get this
Dear Pete,
Let me just focus on two of your questions.
The first one is related to the OpenMPI installation on Ubuntu 16.04
(and maybe other packages). You should not need more packages than what
you list. However, it appears that the software shipped by Ubuntu is
buggy. I can reproduce your
Hi Pete,
I'm glad that it works. You may include my comments, the first line is
the output of 'uname -srv' regarding my system information FYI.
Thanks!
Best,
Martin
On 13.07.2016 17:04, Pete Griffin wrote:
Thanks All!
Martin, after I commented out the line "ADD_FLAGS(DEAL_II_LINKER_FLAGS
Hi Pete,
The difference may be that the NEW version uses
a DynamicSparsityPattern while the OLD only guesses on the size
with, dof_handler.max_couplings_between_dofs(). Apparently with 3d
problems the function overestimates. Presently DynamicSparsityPattern
is used in step-8, but, not in ste
Dear Jiaqi,
Besides the literature suggested by Daniel, you should also read the paper
J.L. Guermond, P. Minev, J. Shen, An overview of projection methods for
incompressible flows, Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 195, 2006.
Section 3.5 explains this question.
As a more general remark to your
Dear Dustin,
I had a look at your program on my machine with the most recent
development version of deal.II. Here is the final timer output in
release mode:
+-+++
| Total wallclock time elapsed since start| 1.02s |
Dear David,
Your example of accessing all elements in a vector individually by
operator [] (or operator ()) is not very representative of the typical
situation in most codes. All vector interfaces implement vector
addition, scaling, and inner products such that you will not have to
write the
Hi Dustin,
Thanks for your file. This is indeed a bug in deal.II. Our algorithms
for copying the sparsity pattern contain a part that scales
quadratically in the number of rows in case most of the rows are empty,
as is the case with some of your sparsity patterns. This is very bad if
there ar
Dear Praveen,
> The documentation says that GaussLobatto node-based FE_TraceQ will be
> implemented in future. Is there any estimate on when this will be
> available ?
The documentation is outdated. Indeed, FE_TraceQ is based on the nodes
of the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature formula. See the code in
s
Dear Praveen,
>
> When I use FE_TraceQ and am setting initial condition with
> VectorTools::interpolate, I get this error
>
>
>
> An error occurred in line <127> of file
>
> in function
>
> void dealii::VectorTools::interpolate(const Ma
Hi Denis,
> From the matrix-free tutorials 37 and 48, I see that the recommended
> flags for VectorizedArrays with GCC are
>
> -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="-march=native"
>
> How about using -O3, -ffast-math, -funroll-loops ? Any other
> recommended flags for GCC?
-march=native gives you AVX vectorization o
Dear Jaekwank,
In addition to what Daniel and Wolfgang said: One does definitely benefit
from going to higher degrees and deal.II is able to handle this (the
accurate boundary representation by a mapping is one thing that is easily
forgotten). In a recent preprint, we considered the flow around
Dear Jaekwang,
if you are using the most recent developer version, you should
automatically get the Gauss-Lobatto version of the node distribution. We
made those point distributions the default for FE_Q(degree) this spring.
Regarding the limits of quadrature formulas: Depending on what exactly
yo
Jaekwang,
can you post the full error message? To me the call looks reasonable
(this is a copy from step-7) and the function definition looks good as well.
Ah, and in case you want to use this in the context of your other
question regarding high order methods: Put a "mapping" as first argument
to
es at least 7
> arguments, but
>
> 6 were provided
>
> void integrate_difference (const Mapping&mapping,
>
> * ^*
>
> */Users/jaekwangjk/Programs/dealii/include/deal.II/numerics/vector_tools.h:1953:8:
> note: *
>
> candidate functi
Dear Jaekwang,
> *FESystemfe; *
>
>
> and constructor mentions taylor hood space as follow
>
>
> StokesProblem::StokesProblem (constunsignedintdegree)
>
> :
>
> degree (degree),
>
>*fe (FE_Q(degree+**1), dim,*
>
> *FE_Q(degree), 1),*
>
You would write fe (FE_Q(QGaus
Dear Rajat,
You could do finite differences using the p4est wrapper in deal.II in
principle, but it would probably not be very efficient. You want to know
the indices which are not available in our wrapper at least, not sure
about p4est. To get them, I would build a DoFHandler based on some
elemen
Dear Denis,
> (1) FEEvaluation has read_dof_values (const std::vector< VectorType >
> &src, const unsigned int first_index=0),
> but i don’t see a function to get to values of each DoF vector at
> quadrature points.
If you need to get the vector values at quadrature points, you would
typically ca
Dear Denis,
> Say if I have mass matrix and Laplace matrix, i would then use
>
> update_values| update_gradients| update_JxW_values;
>
> in AdditionalData. But I wonder would that be any slower than two
> separate MatrixFree data’s, one with
No, that won't be any slower - at least not to any measu
Hi Denis,
I will put the description in the header of the file. PR underway. The
best documentation gets written when explaining things to others. :-)
> actually it’s not about components, it is about values at quadrature
> points for a vector of solution.
> Say I have two vectors representing s
On 09/30/2016 05:08 PM, Denis Davydov wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> On 30 Sep 2016, at 16:49, Martin Kronbichler
>> mailto:kronbichler.mar...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> There are two possibilities for doing things. One is like you say,
>> you loop over
Dear Jinhyun,
deal.II does not support C1-elements (at least not on general meshes and in
3D). However, the standard way of dealing with such problems is to rewrite
the phase field equation as a system of two equations, each of which only
has up to second derivatives. In terms of the phase fiel
Dear Franck,
I justed checked on my machine and it works both on an installation that
only provides Trilinos and on an installation that has both (and where
PETSc is selected). It looks like your installation is 8.4.0 whereas I
think that step-55 requires the current developer version 8.5.0-pr
Dear Praveen,
you can call IndexSet::nth_index_in_range(0) (in case
IndexSet::n_elements() > 0) to get the first entry in the index set.
Best,
Martin
On 23.10.2016 07:38, Praveen C wrote:
I have an IndexSet of locally_owned_dofs and I want to know the
starting index.
praveen
On Sun, Oct
Hi Denis,
I wonder if it possible to re-use FEEvaluation within each cell to
calculate integrals of multiple right-hand-side like vectors.
Yes, you can re-use an FEEvaluation object. As soon as you call
submit_value(), you will write into the data field that is used by
integrate(), which in t
Hi Denis,
I wonder what is the best workaround given the fact that i have quite
a number of such vectors?
You only see this for KellyErrorEstimator, right? Given that the error
estimation is much more expensive than the operator evaluation anyway, I
would suggest you do the copy exactly the wa
Hi Denis,
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a copy of the vector by
ghosted_vector.reinit(locally_owned_set, locally_relevant_set, comm);
ghosted_vector = solution;
ghosted_vector.update_ghost_values();
The reason why there is a VectorView in the MatrixFreeOperators::Base
class is that I wa
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a copy of the vector by
ghosted_vector.reinit(locally_owned_set, locally_relevant_set, comm);
ghosted_vector = solution;
ghosted_vector.update_ghost_values();
not in my case, because i have a lot of vectors and if I can avoid, i would
prefer not to create
Dear Praveen,
Called compress(VectorOperation::insert), but the element received
from a remote processor, value 3.343515457745695e-15, does not match
with the value -3.343515457745695e-15 on the owner processor 0
I dont understand why this error is triggered.
The error says that two processo
Hi Praveen,
Do you happen to use a BLAS that uses threading? I recommend switching
to non-threaded BLAS (or "export OMP_NUM_THREADS=1"). deal.II applies
threading on a higher level and a threaded BLAS is counter-productive in
98% of cases.
Best,
Martin
On 29.12.2016 11:30, Praveen C wrote:
Hi Denis,
Hi Daniel,
On 3 Jan 2017, at 15:09, Daniel Arndt wrote:
Do you have a minimal working example that shows this problem?
I don’t have a MWE for this, not yet at least. The tricky part is that this
happens for some usage cases,
but the same code runs fine in other, more-or-less as
Hi Denis,
Can you please elaborate?
My naïve understanding would be:
1. before doing interpolation, all ghost values are syncrhonized
between the MPI processors
2. solution transfer would, roughly, take local values on each
element, apply transformation matrices corresponding to each child a
Dear Praveen,
No, we do not have information about these properties available in the
library and it cannot be easily introduced either. The reason is that
the particular "spectral" evaluation of polynomials with roots in the
quadrature points depends on the interaction of the finite element an
Dear Stephen,
The problem is data alignment: You create an std::vector
that internally arranges its data under the assumption that the start
address of FEEvaluation is divisible by 32 (the length of the
vectorization). If you put an FEEvaluation object on the stack, the
compiler will automati
ii::FEEvaluation<2, 1,
> 2, 1, double>' cannot be assigned because its copy assignment operator
> is implicitly deleted" error.
>
> How should I be making my AlignedVector?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:23:09 PM UTC-5, Mar
Dear Pascal,
This problem seems related to a problem we recently worked around in
https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/4043
Can you check what happens if you call
GrowingVectorMemory::release_unused_memory()
between your optimization steps? If a communicator gets stack in those
places it
post
> about an internal error in OpenMPI and one of the functions appearing
> in the call stacks sometimes not blocking properly.
> Thank you for your time and your fast responses - the whole library
> and the people developing it and making it available are simply awesome ;)
> Pascal
&g
elp you?
>
> Thank you a lot for your support! This had been driving me crazy :)
>
> Best,
> Pascal
>
> Am Donnerstag, 16. März 2017 08:58:53 UTC+1 schrieb Martin Kronbichler:
>
> Dear Pascal,
>
> You are right, in your case one needs to call
>
>
Dear Alex,
you cannot set a SphericalManifold for the innermost part of a
hyper_ball because the transformation degenerates for radius=0. You need
to restrict the manifold to only the boundary or only the outer part of
the hyper_ball.
Best,
Martin
P.S. for future reference, if I have an is
Hi Denis,
This is a bug somewhere in the initialization of the blocks. Could you
please send me the code to reproduce this behavior?
Best,
Martin
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en
---
Dear Ashkan,
the error message pops up from line 1043, which is the case when your
deal.II configuration does not have P4EST. This is the same code as in
8.4.0. It seems that your deal.II configuration misses to find P4EST,
i.e., DEAL_II_WITH_P4EST is off with the 8.5 version. Can you check in
the
s/petsc-3.7.4
>
> PETSC_DIR=/home/dealii/libs/petsc-3.7.4
>
> OCE_DIR=/home/dealii/libs/oce-0.17.2
>
>
> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 2:09:01 PM UTC+2, Martin Kronbichler wrote:
>
> Dear Ashkan,
>
> the error message pops up from line 1043, which is the
Hi Praveen,
no, MappingQ does not unless you set the second boolean flag in the
constructor to enable the mapping on all cells and not just the
boundary. Even worse, when you have attached a curved manifold on the
cells and not just the boundary you will have gaps in your computational
domain. I h
Dear Juan Carlos,
We have now finalized the TransfiniteInterpolationManifold implementation
in deal.II,
http://dealii.org/developer/doxygen/deal.II/classTransfiniteInterpolationManifold.html
If you are interested, please try it out and let us know. As its
implementation is completely new and I
Dear Hermes,
Did you try VectorTools::point_values,
https://www.dealii.org/current/doxygen/deal.II/namespaceVectorTools.html#a1ad6eceb6cbeaa505baf7f938289bbde
?
As an alternative, you can also check if the point is in the locally
owned cell of the respective cell, and run the evaluation only
I did not check all code in detail, but what I observe is that you write
into the joint_solution vector without ghosts. Now this would likely
result in a run time error (for countinuous elements and in debug mode),
rather than wrong output. But either way, I would recommend you move the
"locall
Dear Praveen,
In addition to what Bruno said, I would just add that I would benchmark
the respective costs carefully before putting it into the code. As you
observed, this requires some additional steps to figure out what work
can be reasonably overlapped. We have this in the matrix-free frame
Dear Bruno,
This is a regular error and not related to the actual problem I believe.
This is simply the message that we use to detect what SIMD extensions we
can enable, and in your case the compilation does not support AVX. But I
think further down in the CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log file you sh
Dear Simon,
We have the class FEPointEvalation,
https://dealii.org/developer/doxygen/deal.II/classFEPointEvaluation.html
, which implements the operation of evaluating a solution at arbitrary
points (as handed in as an array to points in unit coordinates). To do
this for positions in real coo
At this moment, there is no support yet for Nedelec-type elements in the
matrix-free framework. However, I would expect these to get ready within
the next 2-3 months: We have recently added support for Raviart-Thomas
elements, which have similar demands in terms of algorithms, therefore
we have
Dear Wayne,
I am a bit surprised by your numbers and find them rather high, at least
with the chosen problem sizes. I would expect the matrix-free solver to
run in less than a second for 111,000 unknowns on typical computers, not
almost 10 seconds. I need to honestly say that I do not have a g
Dear Wayne,
For performance it certainly matters, because some components of our
codes have more low-level checks in debug mode than others, and because
the compiler optimizations do not have the same effect on all parts of
our code. Make sure to test the release mode and see if it makes more
Dear Simon,
You seem to be looking for FEPointEvaluation. That class is shown in
step-19 and provides, for simple FiniteElement types, a much faster way to
evaluate solutions at arbitrary points within a cell. Do you want to give
it a try? The issue you are facing is that FEValues that you are usi
Dear Simon,
When you use FEPointEvaluation, you should construct it only once and
re-use the same object for different points. Furthermore, you should
also avoid to create "p_dofs" and the "std::vector" near the I was not
clear with my original message. Anyway, the problem is the FEValues
ob
Dear all,
For our project "PDExa: Optimized software methods for solving partial
differential equations on exascale supercomputers", we are currently
looking for applications for PhD or PostDoc positions on the
development of HPC aspects of the deal.II library.
The project is a collaborative eff
Dear Guido,
I regret that you are stepping back as a developer, but I have full
understanding for your personal situation. I think I speak of many
developers and active users of deal.II when I express my gratitude for
all your work and ideas that went into the project, especially regarding
th
Dear Kev,
To give an additional perspective on this topic: The assembly functions
of deal.II (when using FEValues and the approach shown in step-1 to
step-30 at least) are not optimized for performance also when compiled
in release mode, but rather for readability. On an average case with
lin
To extend over what Wolfgang said, the most likely causes for failure
with the Chebyshev preconditioner are:
- the vector supplying the matrix diagonal (via the field
AdditionalData::preconditioner) contains Inf or NaN entries, which in
turn result from either a ill-formed differential operato
Dear Wayne,
To add a remark on the speedup you observed and your expectation, you
should keep in mind that vectorization only helps in case there are no
other bottlenecks in the code, like bandwidth from main memory or from a
particular cache level, how large the proportion of time is when
ac
Dear Greg,
Just to extend on what Peter said: It should be possible to define
anisotropic degrees in a completely discontinuous finite element, say
FE_DGP or FE_DGQ. In that case, you would derive from `FE_Poly` and
insert an anisotropic polynomial space, doing whatever you think is
appropria
Dear Bruno,
You need to specify appropriate CXX flags. For example, I always use
-D CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="-march=native"
on my local machines (that run the code I'm compiling) or
-D CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="-march=icelake-server"
on clusters to be sure the right code gets generated. For example GCC
lists
Dear Lucas,
Without seeing your code, it is difficult to nail down the issue. But by
far the most common mistake that lead to this type of problem in my
codes is that I forgot to initialize an AffineConstraints object with an
index set for the locally relevant DoFs, i.e., I was missing this li
This code triggers a safety mechanism that I introduced recently (April
26). We also see this on one of the test machines:
https://cdash.kyomu.43-1.org/viewBuildError.php?buildid=8758
but I previously thought this is only due to a leftover in the
configuration and I did not see it in real life b
Hi Denis,
what is a? Is it an element of an array? If yes, is the array of type
AlignedVector (or derived from that).
You get this kind of error when there is a load or store to an address
that is not aligned by the size of the vectorized array, 32 bytes in
your case. The data types Vectoriz
Hi Denis,
no, it's just a member variable VectorizedArray:
VectorizedArray a;
But then the class/struct that holds this member variable is not
properly aligned, you probably have it inside an std::vector or
allocated it with 'new'. You will need to put it into an AlignedVector
or similar
Hi Denis,
> While on the topic of alignment, do I need to be more careful about using
>
> template
> structQPData
> {
>Table<2, VectorizedArray > values;
> }
> QPData qp_data;
>
> as a member variable in my class?
Table is fine because it is based on AlignedVector,
so it will use the correct
Dear Howe,
How did you run your simulation? From your picture, it appears that a
higher order method is worse at higher degrees than a lower order
method, which does not match with my experience. If that were the case,
nobody would use high orders. However, you need to bring many pieces in
pl
ercontent.com/-Vs0s6So28js/WYrCbyok9mI/BSc/rfs-1D1TA8c71IQZpOEyOoU3C1idNr1DQCLcBGAs/s1600/Image.png>
Best,
Howe
在 2017年8月9日星期三 UTC+8下午3:25:20，Martin Kronbichler写道：
Dear Howe,
How did you run your simulation? From your picture, it appears
that a higher order method is worse at hig
Dear Praveen,
Regarding the performance of your code, there are several fundamental
problems:
- You run the constructor of Quadrature (allocates memory) and FEValues
(allocates lots of memory, evaluates a number of things you don't need)
that are both not made for use within the scenario of FEFiel
Hi Praveen,
- At this point, the performance depends on the
transform_real_to_unit_cell (which might be slow due to Newton
iterations) and the polynomial evaluation of fe.shape_value and to
some extent the virtual function call of the latter. It depends on
your polynomial space whether this
Dear Stephen,
At hanging nodes, there is definitely going to be a larger error due to
the approximation of the diagonal mass matrix. I do not remember the
exact details but to get a diagonal mass matrix you need to assume an
interpolation in addition to the approximation leading to the mass
l
Dear Michal,
Could you please be a bit more specific? What was the error that you
obtained? What vector did you pass into
FEEvaluation::read_dof_values/distribute_local_to_global? I guess that
you handed in a simple vector, e.g. LinearAlgebra::distributed::Vector
and got a segmentation fault.
Dear Michal,
You are right, this is a bug and your fix is indeed correct. Would you
like to create a pull request fixing it? Here are some basic
instructions: http://dealii.org/participate.html including a video
lecture. This way you get the proper credit for it.
Best,
Martin
On 08.10.2017
Dear Michal,
> for(unsigned int element=0;
> element::n_array_elements ; ++element)
Please use this->data->n_components_filled(cell) instead. It returns how
many of the SIMD lanes are actually filled with real data.
Best,
Martin
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For
W dniu niedziela, 8 października 2017 12:55:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Martin
> Kronbichler napisał:
>
> Dear Michal,
>
> Could you please be a bit more specific? What was the error that
> you obtained? What vector did you pass into
> FEEvaluation::read_dof_values/distribute
https://github.com/dealii/dealii.git/': The
> requested URL returned error: 403
>
>
> W dniu niedziela, 8 października 2017 12:58:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Martin
> Kronbichler napisał:
>
> Dear Michal,
>
> You are right, this is a bug and your fix is i
Hi Jie,
> Thank you for your hints on my previous question. Now I have
> extended step-57 to be time-dependent. I added a u,t term which is
> approximated using backward Euler, and all the remaining terms are
> treated implicitly. Newton iteration is still used at every time step.
> The system b
Hi Jie,
One needs to move some of the vertices around. I have some code that
does generate this geometry in one of my projects:
https://github.com/kronbichler/adaflo/blob/master/tests/flow_past_cylinder.cc
(check the create_triangulation function)
The mesh that comes out from this code is accur
Hi Jie,
One needs to move some of the vertices around. I have some code that
does generate this geometry in one of my projects:
https://github.com/kronbichler/adaflo/blob/master/tests/flow_past_cylinder.cc
(check the create_triangulation function)
The mesh that comes out from this code is accur
version.
* The full text of the license can be found in the file LICENSE at
* the top level of the deal.II distribution.
*
* -----
*
* Authors: Katharina Kormann, Martin Kronbichler, Uppsala University,
* 2009-2012, updated to MPI version with parallel vectors in 2016
*/
#include
entioning it step-37 would be great.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 3:57:09 AM UTC-4, Martin Kronbichler
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michal,
>
> This is expected: the matrix-free operator evaluation cannot apply
> non-homogeneous bo
Dear Stephen,
You are absolutely right, the value of dofs_per_cell is simply wrong in
the vector-valued case. I have been hesitant to fix it because there are
some downstream projects using it (mostly mine, though), but I guess it
is better to switch to the correct notation now rather than cau
Dear Michal,
You mean because once you apply an inhomogeneous Dirichlet condition on
the velocity you also get a contribution because the divergence is not
zero? You could work around that by applying a function in the whole
domain that satisfies the Dirichlet constraints and is divergence fre
Dear Sambit,
If the result of the two cases is different and
ConstraintMatrix::distribute() was called in both cases, I expect there
to be some confusion regarding the indices of ghost entries. In debug
mode, there should be a check that the parallel partitioner of the
vector inside FEEvaluat
In general, we strive to make deal.II faster with new releases, and for
many cases that is also true as I can confirm from my applications. I
have ran step-23 on release 8.0 as well as the current development
sources and I can confirm that the new version is slower on my machine.
If I disable o
wall time (70%)
2. fe_values.reinit -- less often
3. CG solver -- even less often
Kind regards,
Dmitry
On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 11:49:42 AM UTC+3, Martin
Kronbichler wrote:
In general, we strive to make deal.II faster with new releases,
and for many cases that is also true as I
Dear Denis,
> p.s. the mapping is the same for both cases.
>
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 4:16:48 PM UTC+1, Denis Davydov wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am playing around with something in the following setup:
> 1. I have a single p::d::Tria
> 2. two different DoFHandler's using s
Dear users and developers,
I have a question regarding our output strategy: When we output our
solution fields, we always create separate vertices for each element
because this allows us to output discontinuous fields over element edges,
for example. We also have an FAQ entry about this:
https
seems
to be causing the problem for my case.
I think Martin Kronbichler might have to tell you why this is.
But if you're adventurous, take a look how the FillComplete function
in Trilinos looks like and whether you could possibly find the same
kinds of savings there that I found in deal.II. I
Hi Giovanni,
I do have access to the svn for the homepage, so you can send them to me
if you want (and nobody else was quicker in replying).
Best,
Martin
On 02.05.2018 16:22, giovannialze...@hotmail.it wrote:
> Hi everyone!
> I am working with Luca on step 60, it would be nice to add a coupl
Dear Daniel,
the problem is, as far as I can tell, the fact that once you assemble
into a matrix and once into a vector. The paper
K. Kormann: A Time-Space Adaptive Method for the Schrödinger Equation,
Commun. Comput. Phys. 2016, doi: 10.4208/cicp.101214.021015a
describes this effect in sec
Hi Narenda and David,
Just to add on top of what David Wells said, Luca Heltai and I once had
the idea of showing this manifold in a new tutorial program (where we
combine it with MappingFEField to show the performance impact). Now
step-60 does contain some MappingFEField, but on a different topic
Dear Maxi,
This variable is populated by a series of checks on your particular
system. It happens when the configuration stage prints the following
lines, and I assume that this is what you see:
-- Performing Test DEAL_II_HAVE_SSE2
-- Performing Test DEAL_II_HAVE_SSE2 - Failed
-- Performing Test
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
