On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
>
> > As currently designed, there are always two KSPs for A00 - one is
> created as part of MatSchurComplement and the other one sits in the FS
> split.
>
> Really? Isn't that often non-efficient? For any expensive to build and
> memory intensive preconditioner (like ILU(k), LU, AMR) it is crazy to
> create them both if they are the same.
>
Actually, until recently these two KSPs had different options prefixes:
the outer had -fieldsplit_0 and the inner -fieldsplit_1,
so if they were set up from the command line, they could (and did for me)
end up being different, so this reuse of the KSP would be a new thing.
Reusing the factors from ILU(k) or LU would be a good thing, since the
same solve is done as many as 3 times sometimes. The same would be true
for an ASM-type preconditioner with (I)LU on the blocks -- even more so,
since submatrices are getting pulled out.
>
>
> > Are you proposing that the option mechanism we have been discussing
> trigger the creation of the extra KSP,
>
> Yes (maybe not just the option mechanism, but shouldn't there be one
> that is shared by default and only two if they are different?
>
Here's what I think we could do: if there is a -fieldsplit_0_schur_ prefix
in the database (this requires a new PetscOptionsHasNamePrefix()), then set
this prefix on the inner KSP(A00) inside S and prefix -fieldsplit_0_ on the
outer KSP(A00); otherwise pull out the inner KSP(A00) from S and reuse it
as the outer KSP(A00) with prefix -fieldsplit_0_.
Another scenario I can imagine (I'm not advocating this, though) is to have
both prefixes -fieldsplit_0_ and -fieldsplit_0_schur refer
to the inner and outer KSPs, if they are shared (by default), and to
separate KSPs, if the sharing is turned off with a separate option.
I'm not entirely sure how to implement this (it would require an aliasing
mechanism in the PetscOptions database), nor whether this is actually
reasonable.
Dmitry.
>
> Barry
>
>
> > or do you have a different set of options in mind?
>
>
> >
> > Dmitry.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, July 8, 2012, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 7, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I don't understand this thread but I see nothing wrong with
> options like
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_0....
> > >> > >
> > >> > > when using three nested levels of fieldsplit in the same way
> that three levels of block Jacobi (or ASM) gives -sub_sub_sub....
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The recursive nature of the prefixes should be completely
> natural and not require any special code ....
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Providing a prefix in the command line for other options seems
> terrible to me. Using the word inner also seems terrible; when you have
> _sub_sub that is clearly inner
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Could someone explain to me what prefixes are being
> generated that are not the normal recursive process and why?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sure, that is how it works in general. The point here is the
> distinction between A^{-1} in the (0,0) block and
> > >> > > A^{-1} embedded in S, which I will call A^{-1}_S. Right now we
> have
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a) A^{-1}_S and S have the same prefix
> > >> > >
> > >> > > which Dmitry does not want (perfectly reasonable).
> > >> > Before we had
> > >> > >
> > >> > > b) A^{-1} and A^{-1}_S had the same prefix
> > >> > >
> > >> > > which I do not want since it makes things like SIMPLE hard. I
> wanted
> > >> > >
> > >> > > c) A^{-1}_S has prefix <prefix of S>_sub
> > >> > >
> > >> > > but Dmitry said this was a hassle for normal setups and suggested
> that
> > >> > > we have some option that allows A^{-1} and A^{-1}_S to have
> different
> > >> > > prefixes.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks, this makes things much clearer.
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) I don't like your prefix _sub (what the heck does _sub mean in
> this case) but I agree with you that having a different prefix there is good
> > >> >
> > >> > 2) I don't like Dmitry's solution. It introduces an entirely new
> paradigm that we don't have anywhere else in PETSc.
> > >> >
> > >> > My thoughts ----------
> > >> >
> > >> > For PCMG we have prefixes for the levels mg_levels_%d_ if
> the user uses -mg_levels_ksp_type it applied to ALL the levels but if the
> user does -mg_levels_3_ksp_type it is applied only to the 3rd level. This
> is done by having the special treatment of _%d_ integers n the prefix that
> the options database can handle. It would be nice if we could use this
> same basic paradigm to handle this new case that supports both what Dmitry
> and you want but not in a hacky ugly special case way. For example (not so
> good) just use
> > >> >
> > >> > -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type sets the same for both
> > >> > -fieldsplit_0_0_ksp_type for the 0,0 block
> -fieldsplit_0_1_ksp_type for the solve inside the application of S.
> > >> >
> > >> > this is not good because it uses 0 and 1 for the two solves (and
> 0 and 1 have no particular meaning here) but the advantage is that it
> reuses current paradigms.
> > >> >
> > >> > Going further we could have
> > >> >
> > >> > -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type sets the same for both
> > >> > -fieldsplit_0_outter_ksp_type for the 0,0 block and
> -fieldsplit_0_inner_ksp_type for the one inside the S
> > >> >
> > >> > to implement this we would need to add support for %s in options
> prefixes. Maybe _<%s>_ so the options processing accepts a match with the
> string inside the <> or if that is not in the options database it accepts
> an option without the entire _<%s>_ This would require some small additions
> to PetscOptionsFind_private() like the
> > >> >
> > >> > if (!*flg) {
> > >> > PetscInt j,cnt = 0,locs[16],loce[16];
> > >> > size_t n;
> > >> > ierr = PetscStrlen(tmp,&n);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > >> > /* determine the location and number of all _%d_ in the key */
> > >> > for (i=0; i< (PetscInt)n; i++) {
> > >> > if (tmp[i] == '_') {
> > >> > for (j=i+1; j< (PetscInt)n; j++) {
> > >> > if (tmp[j] >= '0' && tmp[j] <= '9') continue;
> > >> > if (tmp[j] == '_' && j > i+1) { /* found a number */
> > >> > locs[cnt] = i+1;
> > >> > loce[cnt++] = j+1;
> > >> > }
> > >> > break;
> > >> > }
> > >> > }
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > What does everyone think?
> > >> > I'm fine with this, except for the small detail that "outer" and
> "inner" infixes might be obscure to the user.
> > >> > I would advocate -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type by itself setting up both
> the inner and outer A^{-1}, and -fieldsplit_0_schur_ksp_type
> > >> > overriding the inner solver settings -- I think "Schur" is more
> descriptive then "inner" and "outer".
> > >>
> > >> So you want -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type to apply to both or to the
> 0,0 block and -fieldsplit_0_schur_ksp_type to refer to just the one inside
> the Schur but no special one just for the 0,0 block, that will always be
> determined by -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type ?
> > >>
> > >> How do you suggest we implement this in a clean way?
> > >>
> > >> Right, the subtlety is that we want to apply the _schur prefix to
> the inner object only if it exists in the options database.
> > >> I think this can be solved fairly simply by providing
> PetscOptionsHasNamePrefix(const char pre[], const char name[], const char
> partial[], PetscBool *match) that returns true when partial is a prefix in
> pre##name. Maybe there is a better name for this routine to avoid
> confusion of "Prefix" with pre.
> > >>
> > >> Is that clean enough? Any other ideas?
> > >>
> > > Are there always TWO ksps (one for the 0,0 solve block and one for
> the solve inside the Schur complement? There really shouldn't always be two
> since usually they are the same, right? So really we need an option to
> indicate one wants different solvers in the the two locations and when the
> one in Schur is created it gets the special prefix. Much like up and down
> smoothing in PCMG is usually the same KSP but need not be.
> > >
> > > Barry
> > >
> > >> Note another issue: the inner and outer A00 KSP share the DM object.
> That is probably okay, though,
> > >> because the DM is supposed to describe the (sub)problem, which is the
> same for both solvers.
> > >>
> > >> Dmitry.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Barry
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Dmitry.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Barry
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Matt
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Barry
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Jul 6, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Dmitry Karpeev <
> karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Knepley <
> knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Dmitry Karpeev <
> karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >> > > > Here's the line in question (also see the immediately preceding
> code):
> > >> > > > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/0d4ccb990bb8#l1.127
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As long as we are fixing this, I would rather not repeat the
> prefix, since we will likely want to
> > >> > > > configure this differently than the block 0 solve. Is any thing
> wrong with
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > schurprefix+"_sub"
> > >> > > > If the inner and outer KSP prefixes are different, it will
> force one to repeat all of the configuration options for the inner and
> outer A00 solvers, even when it is desirable to keep them identical.
> > >> > > > This becomes tedious, if the A00 solvers configuration is
> involved (e.g., a nested fieldsplit with separate options for the splits
> etc.).
> > >> > > > I would advocate making the inner solver use the same prefix as
> the outer solver by default, and allowing the user to specify
> > >> > > > a separate prefix for the inner solver, if it is to be
> configured differently. For example:
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_schur_prefix fieldsplit_0_inner
> -fieldsplit_0_ksp_type gmres -fieldsplit_0_inner_ksp_type preonly etc.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As long as there is a way to do it.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Matt
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Dmitry.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Matt
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Dmitry.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> > > > From: Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov>
> > >> > > > Date: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:04 AM
> > >> > > > Subject: Re: [petsc-dev] Problematic Merge of FieldSplit
> > >> > > > To: For users of the development version of PETSc <
> petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I have the following problem with the prefix choice for the
> MatSchurComplement KSP introduced in this changeset (
> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/0d4ccb990bb8).
> > >> > > > I'm talking about the "inner" KSP for A00, effecting inv(A00)
> in the definition S = A11 - A10 inv(A00) A01.
> > >> > > > We also have the "outer" inv(A00) KSP, which gets prefix "0".
> I recently set the "inner" inv(A00) KSP
> > >> > > > prefix to "0", simply by inheriting it from the "outer" solver.
> Now, it is completely reasonable
> > >> > > > to expect the inner and outer A00 KSPs to have different
> prefixes so that they can be configured differently.
> > >> > > > In fact, there was a recent petsc-users request related to this
> (http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/2012-June/014005.html).
> > >> > > > However, currently the inner A00 KSP inherits the prefix from
> the A11 KSP corresponding to the "1" field. With this prefix choice
> > >> > > > I end up configuring inv(A00) and inv(S) identically, which
> isn't what I want at all.
> > >> > > > I'm not sure what the right approach is, but the current one
> doesn't work for me.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Note also that if A00 is treated with a recursive split, there
> may be numerous options for the A00 KSP.
> > >> > > > Do we want to repeat them for the inner and outer KSPs, if we
> want to configure them identically?
> > >> > > > It's automatic, if the two A00 KSPs share a prefix. Again,
> this takes away some flexibility, so maybe it's not the best solution,
> > >> > > > but I think retaining a simple option for using identical
> configurations is also highly desirable.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Any ideas on how to handle this?
> > >> > > > Dmitry.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Knepley <
> knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > It turns out that 'hg rollback' during an 'hg rebase' does not
> do what I thought it did. I think
> > >> > > > everything is cleaned up with this push, but if you made FS
> changes in the past month, please
> > >> > > > check that it is doing what you want with prefixes, etc.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Now, nested fieldsplits from the command line work, ala
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -ksp_type fgmres
> > >> > > > -pc_type fieldsplit -pc_fieldsplit_type additive
> > >> > > > -pc_fieldsplit_0_fields 0,1
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_pc_type fieldsplit
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_pc_fieldsplit_type schur
> -fieldsplit_0_pc_fieldsplitschur_factorization_type full
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_velocity_ksp_type preonly
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_velocity_pc_type lu
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_pressure_ksp_rtol 1e-10
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_pressure_pc_type jacobi
> > >> > > > -pc_fieldsplit_1_fields 2
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_temperature_ksp_type preonly
> > >> > > > -fieldsplit_temperature_pc_type lu
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > A split with only one field gets the field name, and otherwise
> a split number.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Matt
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin
> their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
> their experiments lead.
> > >> > > > -- Norbert Wiener
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin
> their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
> their experiments lead.
> > >> > > > -- Norbert Wiener
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin
> their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
> their experiments lead.
> > >> > > > -- Norbert Wiener
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> > >> > > -- Norbert Wiener
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120709/c869e106/attachment-0001.html>
