Matthew Knepley wrote:
> I am fine with this too, which is option 1 in my original
> mail. However, this means that when users preallocate, they must
> understand the column layout.
They are going to multiply with a vector, the layout of which must be
compatible with the column layout of the matr
Matthew Knepley wrote:
> Yes, I want to go into the code and every place we query the diagonal
> block, replace cMap by rMap. This is the only thing that makes sense
> to me. By my definitions, diagonal blocks are disjoint, so they must
> be square. Since we normally own rows, it makes sense to us
Matthew Knepley wrote:
> It not computing Ab. Its computing Ab, A^2b, A^3b, etc.
Of course, but that's all possible if A*b is computable. Lisandro
demonstrated that A*x was fine, which it better be because of how x was
obtained. Had he tried A*b, which is the first thing the KSP needs, the
prob
Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
> lead to misinterpretation. But the behaviour you commented is the one
> I would expect.
>
> The rest of this mail is perhaps off-topic, but it is somewhat related.
>
> The other issues is that some M
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> I am fine with this too, which is option 1 in my original mail. However,
> this means that
> when users preallocate, they must understand the column layout. I guess this
> is better
> than changing the code unless I can think of a case wh
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Lisandro Dalcin
> wrote:
>>
>> The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
>> lead to misinterpretation. But the behaviour you commented is the one
>> I would expect.
>
> Okay,
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>
>> > It not computing Ab. Its computing Ab, A^2b, A^3b, etc.
>>
>> Of course, but that's all possible if A*b is computable. ?Lisandro
>> demonstrated that A
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Knepley
> wrote:
> >
> > I am fine with this too, which is option 1 in my original mail. However,
> > this means that
> > when users preallocate, they must understand the column layout. I guess
> t
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > Yes, I want to go into the code and every place we query the diagonal
> > block, replace cMap by rMap. This is the only thing that makes sense
> > to me. By my definitions, diagonal blocks are disjoint, so they must
The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
lead to misinterpretation. But the behaviour you commented is the one
I would expect.
The rest of this mail is perhaps off-topic, but it is somewhat related.
The other issues is that some Mat preallocation routines are lazy
ab
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Matthew Knepley
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Lisandro Dalcin
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
> >> lead to misinterpretation. But
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > It not computing Ab. Its computing Ab, A^2b, A^3b, etc.
>
> Of course, but that's all possible if A*b is computable. Lisandro
> demonstrated that A*x was fine, which it better be because of how x was
> obtained. H
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> > The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
> > lead to misinterpretation. But the behaviour you commented is the one
> > I would expect.
> >
> > The rest of this mail is perhaps off-topic,
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> The only real issue I see here is that the term "diagonal block" could
> lead to misinterpretation. But the behaviour you commented is the one
> I would expect.
Okay, anyone else not want me to try and do this?
>
> The rest of this ma
I think there is an inconsistency in our definitions. If you create a matrix
which
is 4x8 on 2 procs, then you end up with a row and column map like this:
rowMap colMap
[0..2) [2..4) [0..4) [4..8)
However, we use the column map for queries which then give nonsense. The
most
d
15 matches
Mail list logo
