Dear Junchao and Jacob,
Thanks a lot for the response – I also don’t understand why this is related to
the device, especially on why the procedure can be successfully finished for
*once* – As instructed, I tried to add a CHKERRA() macro after (almost) every
petsc line – such as the
Varun,
I created a branch hzhang/feature-mumps-mem-estimate,
see https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/merge_requests/4727
You may give it a try and let me know if this is what you want.
src/ksp/ksp/tutorials/ex52.c is an example.
Hong
From: Varun Hiremath
Sent:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:40 PM Ferrand, Jesus A.
wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I have a question about preallocating memory for a parallel BAIJ matrix.
> From the documentation of MatMPIBAIJSetPreallocation(), the preallocation
> is divided between the so-called "diagonal" and "off-diagonal" sub
>
Greetings!
I have a question about preallocating memory for a parallel BAIJ matrix. From
the documentation of MatMPIBAIJSetPreallocation(), the preallocation is
divided between the so-called "diagonal" and "off-diagonal" sub matrices. In
the example from the documentation, the following
Hi Hong,
Thanks for looking into this. Here is the workflow that I might use:
MatLUFactorSymbolic(F,A,perm,iperm,);
// get memory estimates from MUMPS e.g. INFO(3), INFOG(16), INFOG(17)
// find available memory on the system e.g. RAM size
if (estimated_memory > available_memory)
{
// inform
Matthew Knepley writes:
> What you suggest (flux boundary conditions) would require short-circuiting
> the Riemann solver loop to stick in the flux. It is doable, but we opted
> against it in the initial
> design because it seemed more complex than ghost cells and did not seem to
> have any
Varun,
I am trying to find a way to enable you to switch options after
MatLUFactorSymbolic(). A hack is modifying the flag 'mumps->matstruc' inside
MatLUFactorSymbolic_AIJMUMPS() and MatFactorNumeric_MUMPS().
My understanding of what you want is:
// collect mumps memory info
...
Le lun. 17 janv. 2022 à 17:19, Matthew Knepley a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:49 AM Jed Brown wrote:
>
>> Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu writes:
>>
>> > Sorry I wasn't clear I think.
>> > I was thinking that for finite volume codes, you have two options:
>> either
>> > you use ghost cells
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:49 AM Jed Brown wrote:
> Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu writes:
>
> > Sorry I wasn't clear I think.
> > I was thinking that for finite volume codes, you have two options: either
> > you use ghost cells that you fill up with the appropriate primitive state
> > for the
Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu writes:
> Sorry I wasn't clear I think.
> I was thinking that for finite volume codes, you have two options: either
> you use ghost cells that you fill up with the appropriate primitive state
> for the boundary condition, or you directly enforce the boundary condition
>
Hello everyone,
Thank you for your answer Jed.
Le lun. 17 janv. 2022 à 15:52, Jed Brown a écrit :
> Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu writes:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I was wondering if it was possible to build a solver based on PetscFV
> > without using ghost cells for the boundary conditions ?
> >
Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was wondering if it was possible to build a solver based on PetscFV
> without using ghost cells for the boundary conditions ?
> Would it be possible to call PetscDSAddBoundary with DM_BC_ESSENTIAL and so
> on instead of DM_BC_NATURAL_RIEMANN
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if it was possible to build a solver based on PetscFV
without using ghost cells for the boundary conditions ?
Would it be possible to call PetscDSAddBoundary with DM_BC_ESSENTIAL and so
on instead of DM_BC_NATURAL_RIEMANN ?
Mostly in the case of an hybrid problem
13 matches
Mail list logo
