On Thu, 15 May, 2014 at 2:43 PM, David Ham <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris,

In Firedrake we solve this problem by imposing an additional constraint on numbering of entities (and DoFs) such that ghost entitites (which we call halo entities) are numbered after the owned ones.


Yes, this is the natural thing to do. DOLFIN already does this for dofs (this will be more apparent in the upcoming switch to local dof indexing).

This imposes a slightly suboptimal traversal order, since you are constraining RCM or SFC or whatever order you were using, but it means you can traverse owned cells and/or halo cells as contiguous blocks. (In fact we do a more complex version of this where we distinguish between owned cells which can't see the boundary and owned cells which can, but the principle is the same).

I wouldn't expect this sub-optimal ordering to have a noticeable impact on performance.

Garth

Cheers,

David


On 15 May 2014 14:26, Chris Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear all,

I am trying to integrate some changes for "ghost mesh" creation into
dolfin.
This involves adding some extra cells to the local mesh on each process,
which overlap with neighbouring processes.

That much is fine, but in order not to break user code, I was thinking
that
the MeshEntityIterator should not by default iterate over these "ghost
cells" or their any of their associated facets, edges and vertices,
unless they are shared with other "real" cells.

However, skipping over them without reducing memory or CPU efficiency
could be tricky. Does anyone have any ideas? Or should it just be left up to users to sort out (i.e. just provide a way of flagging up if you
are on a ghost cell).

Chris
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics



--
Dr David Ham
Departments of Mathematics and Computing
Imperial College London

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham

_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics

Reply via email to