Thanks Jed for the advice. Actually I looked at the code and I think this was the only place I had made this implicit assumption (but the most important place). As a matter of fact, I make my vectors layout according to the AO that I get from partitioning. I think my main mistake was that I had assumed the partitioning uses the same ordering as the PETSc ordering.
The code seems to run correctly now :) On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 17:25, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Just to make sure though, is my assumption on the natural ordering of >> PETSc correct? > > > Yes, but please don't write code that depends on that. It's plenty easy to > query the local size or the sizes/starts of other processes. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20120409/4d31b0fa/attachment.htm>