Skip to content

Conversation

@jobh
Copy link
Collaborator

@jobh jobh commented Feb 9, 2023

Prototype interface with PETSc solvers.

Unfortunately, I could not get it to work with PETSc's VecNest vectors, which means that we need to copy vectors back and forth all the time. I'm not planning to merge this unless anyone knows PETSc well enough to figure out the VecNest problem.

@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from 119a746 to 4a6b2a3 Compare February 9, 2023 13:50
@MiroK
Copy link
Collaborator

MiroK commented Feb 9, 2023

@jobh is there some demo already where PETSc Nest/solvers could be tried?

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2023

File Coverage Lines Branches Missing
All files 61% 66% 56%
block/algebraic/petsc/__init__.py 67% 84% 50% 7-8 10
block/algebraic/petsc/precond.py 69% 71% 68% 41 51 56-57 70-74 97 100 107 110 114 292 328-330 335-340 345-374 377-396
block/algebraic/petsc/solver.py 78% 87% 69% 25 29 37 42 59 64-67 80 109 118 130 134

Minimum allowed coverage is 50%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against 396861d

@jobh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jobh commented Feb 9, 2023

@MiroK I don't know, there is maybe something in the petsc4py distribution?

The new demo petsc.py uses the PETSc solvers, it will use VecNest if USE_VECNEST in petsc/solver.py is True. But it doesn't work, and I don't know how to dig beyond the "error code 86" message

@jobh jobh changed the base branch from master to jobh/petsc-isolated-options February 10, 2023 11:15
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-isolated-options branch from 693396e to f6354f4 Compare February 10, 2023 11:24
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from 66d2349 to c70fb1b Compare February 10, 2023 11:25
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-isolated-options branch from f6354f4 to deb6dd5 Compare February 10, 2023 15:13
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from c70fb1b to ad27b0f Compare February 10, 2023 15:13
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-isolated-options branch from deb6dd5 to 56befcb Compare February 14, 2023 11:18
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from ad27b0f to f494664 Compare February 14, 2023 11:36
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-isolated-options branch from 56befcb to 508c80d Compare February 14, 2023 11:46
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from f494664 to e65c6aa Compare February 14, 2023 11:47
Base automatically changed from jobh/petsc-isolated-options to master February 15, 2023 12:43
@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from e65c6aa to 7c2e4c5 Compare February 15, 2023 12:44
except:
info('failed to set near null space (not supported in petsc4py version)')

class petsc_base(block_base):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some of the methods, e.g. LU, Cholesky miss the prefix argument in their __init__ signature.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it must be a problem introduced in PR #9, not this one? I'll look into it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rebased on top of bugfix

@jobh jobh force-pushed the jobh/petsc-solver branch from 7c2e4c5 to 396861d Compare February 26, 2023 22:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants