After working hard on mpi4py, this week I'll spend my time cleaning-up
and adding features to the new Cython-based petsc4py. Then, I'll be
asking questions to this list requesting for advise.
In all calls that create new PETSc objects, I've decided to make the
'comm' argument optional. If the
What about a PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT that lives in the same place as
PETSC_COMM_WORLD and PETSC_COMM_SELF.? You could have it
default to PETSC_COMM_whatever and the user could change it
immediately after PetscInitialize() to whatever they chose.
For simplicity I wouldn't have a setter like
I would still maintain that PETSC_COMM_WORLD is the correct default. There
are better paradigms for embarassingly parallel operation, like Condor. PETSc
is intended for parallel, domain decomposition runs.
Matt
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Lisandro Dalcin dalcinl at gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that PETSC_COMM_WORLD is the correct default. There
are better paradigms for embarassingly parallel operation, like Condor. PETSc
is intended for parallel, domain decomposition runs.
Yes, you
Now that we can get Mat ownership range/reanges from rows and cols,
would it make sense to condensate the calls into a single
MatGetOwnershipRange[s] able to return all the ranges? Something like:
MatGetOwnershipRange(Mat A, PetscInt* rlow, PetscInt *rhigh, PetscInt
*clow, PetscInt *chigh);
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Lisandro Dalcin dalcinl at gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that PETSC_COMM_WORLD is the correct default. There
are better paradigms for embarassingly parallel operation, like
Barry/Matt/Shatish. Could any of you review the implementation of
MatGetOwnershipRanges() and MatGetOwnershipRangesColumns(). I believe
a MatPreallocated() call is missing in both functions? The companion
ones, MatGetOwnershipRange() and MatGetOwnershipRangeColumns()
DO HAVE the call to
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com wrote:
I agree that people will do this, I just don't agree that it should be
the default.
Would you agree with the following:
At petsc4py initialization (and after calling PetscInitialize()), I
define PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT =
This is fine for me, except I vote against the setter/getter. Just
let the
power user access the variable PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT directly.
Barry
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
wrote:
I agree
I am cool with this.
Matt
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
This is fine for me, except I vote against the setter/getter. Just let the
power user access the variable PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT directly.
Barry
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Lisandro
I'm changing those two routines to also preallocate.
Barry
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
Barry/Matt/Shatish. Could any of you review the implementation of
MatGetOwnershipRanges() and MatGetOwnershipRangesColumns(). I believe
a MatPreallocated() call is missing
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
This is fine for me, except I vote against the setter/getter. Just let the
power user access the variable PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT directly.
Barry, sorry, I do not completely understand your comments. All my
concern about
On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov
wrote:
This is fine for me, except I vote against the setter/getter. Just
let the
power user access the variable PETSC_COMM_DEFAULT directly.
Barry, sorry, I do
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
This is fine for me, except I vote against the setter/getter. Just let
the
power user
14 matches
Mail list logo
