On Do, 2015-02-05 at 16:45 -0600, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Fabian Gabel <gabel.fab...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> > -coupledsolve_pc_type fieldsplit
> > -coupledsolve_pc_fieldsplit_0_fields 0,1,2
> > -coupledsolve_pc_fieldsplit_1_fields 3
> > -coupledsolve_pc_fieldsplit_type schur
> > -coupledsolve_pc_fieldsplit_block_size 4
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_ksp_converged_reason
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_1_ksp_converged_reason
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_ksp_type gmres
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_pc_type fieldsplit
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_pc_fieldsplit_block_size
> 3
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_0_pc_type ml
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_1_pc_type ml
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_2_pc_type ml
> >
> > Is it normal, that I have to explicitly specify the
> block size
> > for each
> > fieldsplit?
> >
> >
> > No. You should be able to just specify
> >
> >
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_ksp_converged
> > -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_fieldsplit_pc_type ml
> >
> >
> > and same options will be applied to all splits (0,1,2).
> >
> > Does this functionality not work?
> >
> >
> It does work indeed, but what I actually was referring to, was
> the use
> of
>
> -coupledsolve_pc_fieldsplit_block_size 4
> -coupledsolve_fieldsplit_0_pc_fieldsplit_block_size 3
>
> Without them, I get the error message
>
> [0]PETSC ERROR: PCFieldSplitSetDefaults() line 468
> in /work/build/petsc/src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/fieldsplit.c
> Unhandled
> case, must have at least two fields, not 1
>
> I thought PETSc would already know, what I want to do, since I
> initialized the fieldsplit with
>
> CALL PCFieldSplitSetIS(PRECON,PETSC_NULL_CHARACTER,ISU,IERR)
>
> etc.
> >
> >
>
> > Are there any guidelines to follow that I could use
> to avoid
> > taking wild
> > guesses?
> >
> >
> > Sure. There are lots of papers published on how to construct
> robust
> > block preconditioners for saddle point problems arising from
> Navier
> > Stokes.
> > I would start by looking at this book:
> >
> >
> > Finite Elements and Fast Iterative Solvers
> >
> > Howard Elman, David Silvester and Andy Wathen
> >
> > Oxford University Press
> >
> > See chapters 6 and 8.
> >
> As a matter of fact I spent the last days digging through
> papers on the
> regard of preconditioners or approximate Schur complements and
> the names
> Elman and Silvester have come up quite often.
>
> The problem I experience is, that, except for one publication,
> all the
> other ones I checked deal with finite element formulations.
> Only
>
> Klaij, C. and Vuik, C. SIMPLE-type preconditioners for
> cell-centered,
> colocated finite volume discretization of incompressible
> Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations
>
> presented an approach for finite volume methods. Furthermore,
> a lot of
> literature is found on saddle point problems, since the linear
> system
> from stable finite element formulations comes with a 0 block
> as pressure
> matrix. I'm not sure how I can benefit from the work that has
> already
> been done for finite element methods, since I neither use
> finite
> elements nor I am trying to solve a saddle point problem (?).
>
>
> I believe the operator estimates for FV are very similar to first
> order FEM,
Ok, so you would suggest to just discretize the operators differently
(FVM instead of FEM discretization)?
> and
> I believe that you do have a saddle-point system in that there are
> both positive
> and negative eigenvalues.
A first test on a small system in Matlab shows, that my system matrix is
positive semi-definite but I am not sure how this result could be
derived in general form from the discretization approach I used.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > > Petsc has some support to generate approximate
> pressure
> > schur
> > > complements for you, but these will not be as good
> as the
> > ones
> > > specifically constructed for you particular
> discretization.
> >
> > I came across a tutorial
> (/snes/examples/tutorials/ex70.c),
> > which shows
> > 2 different approaches:
> >
> > 1- provide a Preconditioner \hat{S}p for the
> approximation of
> > the true
> > Schur complement
> >
> > 2- use another Matrix (in this case its the Matrix
> used for
> > constructing
> > the preconditioner in the former approach) as a new
> > approximation of the
> > Schur complement.
> >
> > Speaking in terms of the PETSc-manual p.87, looking
> at the
> > factorization
> > of the Schur field split preconditioner, approach 1
> sets
> > \hat{S}p while
> > approach 2 furthermore sets \hat{S}. Is this
> correct?
> >
> >
> >
> > No this is not correct.
> > \hat{S} is always constructed by PETSc as
> > \hat{S} = A11 - A10 KSP(A00) A01
>
> But then what happens in this line from the
> tutorial /snes/examples/tutorials/ex70.c
>
> ierr = KSPSetOperators(subksp[1], s->myS,
> s->myS);CHKERRQ(ierr);
>
> It think the approximate Schur complement a (Matrix of type
> Schur) gets
> replaced by an explicitely formed Matrix (myS, of type
> MPIAIJ).
> >
> > You have two choices in how to define the preconditioned,
> \hat{S_p}:
> >
> > [1] Assemble you own matrix (as is done in ex70)
> >
> > [2] Let PETSc build one. PETSc does this according to
> >
> > \hat{S_p} = A11 - A10 inv(diag(A00)) A01
> >
> Regards,
> Fabian
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
