Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-06-01 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > On 25/05/17 21:00, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Mitchell > > > > wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-06-01 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:12, Stefano Zampini wrote: >> Now I'd like to grow the overlap such that any cell I can see through >> a facet (and its closure) lives in the overlap. >> > > Lawrence, why do you need the closure here? Why facet adjacency is not enough? Sorry,

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-06-01 Thread Stefano Zampini
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Lawrence Mitchell > wrote: > > On 25/05/17 21:00, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Mitchell >> > > wrote: >> >> >>>

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-06-01 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
On 01/06/17 16:51, Lawrence Mitchell wrote: ... > So I can write a "DMPlexGetAdjacency" information that only returns > non-empty adjacencies for facets. But it's sort of lying about what > it does now. Proposed a PR that allows the user to specify what they want adjacency to mean by providing

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-06-01 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
On 25/05/17 21:00, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Mitchell > > wrote: > > > > On 25 May 2017, at 20:03, Matthew Knepley > wrote: >

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2017, at 20:03, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, I thought I made adjacency per field. I have to look. That way, no > problem with the Stokes example. DG is

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
> On 25 May 2017, at 20:03, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > Hmm, I thought I made adjacency per field. I have to look. That way, no > problem with the Stokes example. DG is still weird. You might, we don't right now. We just make the topological adjacency that is "large

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2017, at 19:46, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > Sounds like DG. I will get out my dead chicken for the incantation > > Actually no! Mixed H(div)-L2 for Stokes. Which

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
> On 25 May 2017, at 19:46, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > Sounds like DG. I will get out my dead chicken for the incantation Actually no! Mixed H(div)-L2 for Stokes. Which has facet integrals for partially discontinuous fields. If you do redundant compute for such terms,

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2017, at 19:23, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > Ok, let me clarify. > > > > Given shared facets, I'd like closure(support(facet)) this is a subset > of the fem

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
> On 25 May 2017, at 19:23, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > Ok, let me clarify. > > Given shared facets, I'd like closure(support(facet)) this is a subset of the > fem adjacency. "Add in the cell and its closure from the remote rank". This > doesn't include remote cells I can

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2017, at 18:05, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > If you want that, is there a reason you cannot use the FEM style > FALSE+TRUE? > If you already want the closure, usually

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
> On 25 May 2017, at 18:05, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > If you want that, is there a reason you cannot use the FEM style FALSE+TRUE? > If you already want the closure, usually the star is not really adding > anything new. Ok, let me clarify. Given shared facets, I'd like

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > On 25/05/17 16:25, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Lawrence Mitchell > > > > wrote: > > > >

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
On 25/05/17 16:25, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Lawrence Mitchell > > wrote: > > Dear petsc-users, > > I am trying to distribute a triangle mesh with a cell halo defined by >

Re: [petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Lawrence Mitchell < lawrence.mitch...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear petsc-users, > > I am trying to distribute a triangle mesh with a cell halo defined by > FVM adjacency (i.e. if I have a facet in the initial (0-overlap) > distribution, I want the cell on the

[petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

2017-05-25 Thread Lawrence Mitchell
Dear petsc-users, I am trying to distribute a triangle mesh with a cell halo defined by FVM adjacency (i.e. if I have a facet in the initial (0-overlap) distribution, I want the cell on the other side of it). Reading the documentation, I think I do: DMPlexSetAdjacencyUseCone(PETSC_TRUE)