Re: [petsc-users] compiler error

Is this change going to be part of the next patch release, or the eventual 3.7? -gideon > On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > > Hopefully all changes should be documented in the changes file.. > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/changes/dev.html >

Re: [petsc-users] compiler error

future full release [3.7] will be from 'master' branch. future patch fix release [3.6.x] will be from 'maint' branch. You can choose the branch to use - based on your need.. Satish On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Gideon Simpson wrote: > Is this change going to be part of the next patch release, or the

Re: [petsc-users] compiler error

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Gideon Simpson wrote: > Is this change going to be part of the next patch release, or the eventual > 3.7? > Its in master, so it will be 3.7 Thanks, Matt > -gideon > > On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Satish Balay

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

This is a very interesting thread because use of block matrix improves the performance of AMG a lot. In my case is the elasticity problem. One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of the solver. That if I have a coupled problem, says the point block is [u_x u_y u_z p] in

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Bhalla, Amneet Pal S wrote: > > > On Jan 13, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > Can you mail us a -log_summary for a rough cut? Sometimes its hard > to interpret the data avalanche from one of those tools

Re: [petsc-users] compiler error

I know I did a git pull recently, but when did that change? What’s the fifth argument represent? -gideon > On Jan 13, 2016, at 11:54 PM, Satish Balay wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gideon Simpson wrote: > >> I haven’t seen this before: >> >>

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dave May wrote: > > > On 14 January 2016 at 14:24, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Bhalla, Amneet Pal S < >> amne...@live.unc.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 6:22 PM,

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

On 14 January 2016 at 14:24, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Bhalla, Amneet Pal S < > amne...@live.unc.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jan 13, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >> Can you mail us a -log_summary for a rough

Re: [petsc-users] undefined reference error in make test

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:03 AM, praveen kumar wrote: > I’ve written a fortan code (F90) for domain decomposition.* I've > specified **the paths of include files and libraries, but the > compiler/linker still * > > > *complained about undefined references.undefined

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

And the PETSc log summary for comparison *** WIDEN YOUR WINDOW TO 120 CHARACTERS. Use 'enscript -r -fCourier9' to print this document***

Re: [petsc-users] undefined reference error in make test

Thanks a lot Satish. On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Satish Balay wrote: > Matt already responded to this. You should be using VecSet() - not > VectorSet(). > I'm not sure where you got VectorSet() from... > > > > >

Re: [petsc-users] undefined reference error in make test

I’m struggling to figure out *undefined reference to `vectorset_*. I’ve included both petscvec.h and petscvec.h90 but the error appears again. I’m attaching makefile and code. any help will be appreciated. On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Thu, Jan

Re: [petsc-users] undefined reference error in make test

Matt already responded to this. You should be using VecSet() - not VectorSet(). I'm not sure where you got VectorSet() from... > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Vec/VecSet.html Satish On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, praveen kumar wrote: > I’m struggling to figure out

Re: [petsc-users] Profile a matrix-free solver.

So KSPSolve is 96 % and MatMult is 70 % + PCApply 24 % = 94 % so this makes sense; the solver time is essentially the multiply time plus the PCApply time. compute_rhs 1823 1.0 4.2119e+02 1.0 0.00e+00 0.0 4.4e+04 5.4e+04 1.1e+04 71 0100100 39 71 0100100 39 0 LU-SGS

Re: [petsc-users] Profile a matrix-free solver.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Song Gao wrote: > Hello, > > I am profiling a finite element Navier-Stokes solver. It uses the > Jacobian-free Newton Krylov method and a custom preconditoner LU-SGS (a > matrix-free version of Symmetic Gauss-Seidel ). The log summary is

[petsc-users] Profile a matrix-free solver.

Hello, I am profiling a finite element Navier-Stokes solver. It uses the Jacobian-free Newton Krylov method and a custom preconditoner LU-SGS (a matrix-free version of Symmetic Gauss-Seidel ). The log summary is attached. Four events are registered. compute_rhs is compute rhs (used by

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:04 AM, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > > This is a very interesting thread because use of block matrix improves the > performance of AMG a lot. In my case is the elasticity problem. > > One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

Hoang Giang Bui writes: > One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of the > solver. That if I have a coupled problem, says the point block is [u_x u_y > u_z p] in which entries of p block in stiffness matrix is in a much smaller > scale than u (p~1e-6,

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > > Matt is right, there is a lot of "missing" time from the output. Please > send the output from -ksp_view so we can see exactly what solver is being > used. > > From the output we have: > >Nonlinear solver

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Griffith, Boyce Eugene > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >> >> Matt is right, there is a lot of "missing" time from the output. Please >> send the output from -ksp_view so we can

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

On Jan 14, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Barry Smith > wrote: On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Griffith, Boyce Eugene > wrote: On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Barry Smith

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > Hoang Giang Bui writes: >> One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of the >> solver. That if I have a coupled problem, says the point block is [u_x u_y >> u_z p] in which

Re: [petsc-users] HPCToolKit/HPCViewer on OS X

Matt is right, there is a lot of "missing" time from the output. Please send the output from -ksp_view so we can see exactly what solver is being used. From the output we have: Nonlinear solver 78 % of the time (so your "setup code" outside of PETSC is taking about 22% of the time)

Re: [petsc-users] Why use MATMPIBAIJ?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Hoang Giang Bui wrote: > This is a very interesting thread because use of block matrix improves the > performance of AMG a lot. In my case is the elasticity problem. > > One more question I like to ask, which is more on the performance of the

Re: [petsc-users] compiler error

Hopefully all changes should be documented in the changes file.. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/changes/dev.html You can use git to find out more info.. balay@asterix /home/balay/petsc (master=) $ git grep PetscOptionsGetScalar include/ include/petscoptions.h:PETSC_EXTERN