sdjfo

[GMRES2stage.git] / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index fe7fa3952ac90a99424b026e688b0cb5b2d13ac7..16b2de588eaeb4977240ffb3598fae1e9dd79cf3 100644 (file)
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -380,8 +380,8 @@
 % use a multiple column layout for up to two different
 % affiliations
 
 % use a multiple column layout for up to two different
 % affiliations
 

-\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Rapha\"el Couturier\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}, Lilia Ziane Khodja \IEEEauthorrefmark{2}, and Christophe Guyeux\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}}
-\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{1} Femto-ST Institute, University of Franche Comte, France\\
+\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Rapha\"el Couturier\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}, Lilia Ziane Khodja\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}, and Christophe Guyeux\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}}
+\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{1} Femto-ST Institute, University of Franche-Comt\'e, France\\

 Email: \{raphael.couturier,christophe.guyeux\}@univ-fcomte.fr}
 \IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{2} INRIA Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, France\\
 Email: lilia.ziane@inria.fr}
 Email: \{raphael.couturier,christophe.guyeux\}@univ-fcomte.fr}
 \IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{2} INRIA Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, France\\
 Email: lilia.ziane@inria.fr}


@@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ GMRES.
 \end{abstract}
 
 \begin{IEEEkeywords}
 \end{abstract}
 
 \begin{IEEEkeywords}

-Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; residual minimization; PETSc; %à voir... 
+Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; two stage iteration; least-squares residual minimization; PETSc

 \end{IEEEkeywords}
 
 
 \end{IEEEkeywords}
 
 


@@ -547,38 +547,42 @@ Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; residual minimization; PETSc; %
 % You must have at least 2 lines in the paragraph with the drop letter
 % (should never be an issue)
 
 % You must have at least 2 lines in the paragraph with the drop letter
 % (should never be an issue)
 

-Iterative methods have recently become more attractive than  direct ones to  solve very large
-sparse  linear systems.  They are more  efficient  in a  parallel
-context,  supporting  thousands  of  cores,  and they require  less  memory  and  arithmetic
-operations than direct  methods. This is why new iterative  methods are frequently 
-proposed or adapted by researchers, and the increasing need to solve very large sparse
-linear  systems  has triggered the  development  of such efficient iterative  techniques
-suitable for parallel processing.
-
-Most of the successful iterative methods currently available are based on so-called ``Krylov
-subspaces''. They  consist in forming a  basis of successive matrix
-powers multiplied by an initial vector, which can be for instance the residual. These methods use vectors orthogonality of the Krylov  subspace  basis in order to solve  linear
-systems.  The  most known iterative  Krylov subspace methods  are conjugate
-gradient and GMRES ones (Generalized Minimal RESidual).
-
-
-However,  iterative  methods suffer  from scalability  problems  on parallel
-computing  platforms  with many  processors, due  to  their need  of  reduction
-operations, and to  collective    communications   to  achive   matrix-vector
+Iterative methods have recently become more attractive than direct ones to solve
+very large sparse  linear systems\cite{Saad2003}.  They are more  efficient in a
+parallel context,  supporting thousands of  cores, and they require  less memory
+and  arithmetic operations than  direct methods~\cite{bahicontascoutu}.  This is
+why new iterative methods are frequently proposed or adapted by researchers, and
+the increasing need to solve very  large sparse linear systems has triggered the
+development  of  such  efficient  iterative  techniques  suitable  for  parallel
+processing.
+
+Most  of the  successful  iterative  methods currently  available  are based  on
+so-called ``Krylov  subspaces''. They consist  in forming a basis  of successive
+matrix powers  multiplied by an  initial vector, which  can be for  instance the
+residual. These methods  use vectors orthogonality of the  Krylov subspace basis
+in  order to solve  linear systems.   The most  known iterative  Krylov subspace
+methods are conjugate gradient and GMRES ones (Generalized Minimal RESidual).
+
+
+However,  iterative  methods  suffer   from  scalability  problems  on  parallel
+computing  platforms  with many  processors,  due  to  their need  of  reduction
+operations,   and  to   collective  communications   to   achieve  matrix-vector

 multiplications. The  communications on large  clusters with thousands  of cores
 multiplications. The  communications on large  clusters with thousands  of cores

-and  large  sizes of  messages  can  significantly  affect the  performances  of these
-iterative methods. As a consequence, Krylov subspace iteration methods are often used
-with preconditioners in practice, to increase their convergence and accelerate their
-performances.  However, most  of the  good preconditioners  are not  scalable on
-large clusters.
-
-In this research work, a two-stage algorithm based on  two nested iterations
-called inner-outer  iterations is proposed.  This algorithm  consists in solving  the sparse
-linear system iteratively  with a small number of  inner iterations, and restarting
-the outer  step with a  new solution minimizing  some error functions  over some
-previous residuals. This algorithm is iterative and easy to parallelize on large
-clusters. Furthermore,  the   minimization  technique   improves  its   convergence  and
-performances.
+and large sizes  of messages can significantly affect  the performances of these
+iterative methods. As a consequence, Krylov subspace iteration methods are often
+used  with  preconditioners  in  practice,  to increase  their  convergence  and
+accelerate their  performances.  However, most  of the good  preconditioners are
+not scalable on large clusters.
+
+In  this research work,  a two-stage  algorithm based  on two  nested iterations
+called inner-outer  iterations is proposed.  This algorithm  consists in solving
+the sparse  linear system iteratively with  a small number  of inner iterations,
+and  restarting  the  outer step  with  a  new  solution minimizing  some  error
+functions  over some previous  residuals. For  further information  on two-stage
+iteration      methods,     interested      readers      are     invited      to
+consult~\cite{Nichols:1973:CTS}. Two-stage algorithms are easy to parallelize on
+large clusters.  Furthermore,  the least-squares minimization technique improves
+its convergence and performances.

 
 The present  article is  organized as follows.   Related works are  presented in
 Section~\ref{sec:02}. Section~\ref{sec:03} details the two-stage algorithm using
 
 The present  article is  organized as follows.   Related works are  presented in
 Section~\ref{sec:02}. Section~\ref{sec:03} details the two-stage algorithm using


@@ -597,7 +601,37 @@ is summarized while intended perspectives are provided.
 %%%*********************************************************
 \section{Related works}
 \label{sec:02} 
 %%%*********************************************************
 \section{Related works}
 \label{sec:02} 

-%Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman or Times New Roman may be used. If neither is available on your system, please use the font closest in appearance to Times. Avoid using bit-mapped fonts if possible. True-Type 1 or Open Type fonts are preferred. Please embed symbol fonts, as well, for math, etc.
+Krylov subspace iteration methods have increasingly become key
+techniques  for  solving  linear and nonlinear systems,  or  eigenvalue  problems,
+especially      since       the      increasing      development       of      
+preconditioners~\cite{Saad2003,Meijerink77}.  One reason  of  the popularity  of
+these methods is their generality, simplicity, and efficiency to solve systems of
+equations arising from very large and complex problems.
+
+GMRES is one of the most  widely used Krylov iterative method for solving sparse
+and large  linear systems. It  has been developed by  Saad \emph{et al.}~\cite{Saad86}  as a
+generalized  method to  deal with  unsymmetric and  non-Hermitian  problems, and
+indefinite symmetric problems too. In its original version called full GMRES, this algorithm
+minimizes the residual over the  current Krylov subspace until convergence in at
+most $n$ iterations,  where $n$ is the  size of the sparse matrix.  
+Full GMRES is however too much expensive in the case of large matrices, since the
+required orthogonalization  process per  iteration grows quadratically  with the
+number of iterations. For that reason, GMRES is restarted in practice after each
+$m\ll n$ iterations, to avoid the  storage of a large orthonormal basis. However,
+the  convergence behavior  of the  restarted GMRES,  called GMRES($m$),  in many
+cases depends quite critically on  the $m$ value~\cite{Huang89}. Therefore in
+most cases, a preconditioning technique is applied to the restarted GMRES method
+in order to improve its convergence.
+
+To enhance the robustness of Krylov iterative solvers, some techniques have been proposed allowing the use of different preconditioners, if necessary, within the iteration instead of restarting. Those techniques may lead to considerable savings in CPU time and memory requirements. Van der Vorst in~\cite{Vorst94} has for instance proposed variants of the GMRES algorithm in which a different preconditioner is applied in each iteration, leading to the so-called GMRESR family of nested methods. In fact, the GMRES method is effectively preconditioned with other iterative schemes (or GMRES itself), where the iterations of the GMRES method are called outer iterations while the iterations of the preconditioning process is referred to as inner iterations. Saad in~\cite{Saad:1993} has proposed FGMRES which is another variant of the GMRES algorithm using a variable preconditioner. In FGMRES the search directions are preconditioned whereas in GMRESR the residuals are preconditioned. However, in practice, good preconditioners are those based on direct methods, as ILU preconditioners, which are not easy to parallelize and suffer from the scalability problems on large clusters of thousands of cores.  
+
+Recently, communication-avoiding methods have been developed to reduce the communication overheads in Krylov subspace iterative solvers. On modern computer architectures, communications between processors are much slower than floating-point arithmetic operations on a given processor. Communication-avoiding techniques reduce either communications between processors or data movements between levels of the memory hierarchy, by reformulating the communication-bound kernels (more frequently SpMV kernels) and the orthogonalization operations within the Krylov iterative solver. Different works have studied the communication-avoiding techniques for the GMRES method, so-called CA-GMRES, on multicore processors and multi-GPU machines~\cite{Mohiyuddin2009,Hoemmen2010,Yamazaki2014}. 
+
+Compared  to all these  works and  to all  the other  works on  Krylov iterative
+method, the originality of our work is to build a second iteration over a Krylov
+iterative method and to minimize the residuals with a least-squares method after
+a given number of outer iterations.
+

 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 


@@ -605,7 +639,7 @@ is summarized while intended perspectives are provided.
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************

-\section{Two-stage iteration with least-squares residuals minimization algorithm}
+\section{TSIRM: Two-stage iteration with least-squares residuals minimization algorithm}

 \label{sec:03}
 A two-stage algorithm is proposed  to solve large  sparse linear systems  of the
 form  $Ax=b$,  where  $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times   n}$  is  a  sparse  and  square
 \label{sec:03}
 A two-stage algorithm is proposed  to solve large  sparse linear systems  of the
 form  $Ax=b$,  where  $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times   n}$  is  a  sparse  and  square


@@ -618,22 +652,23 @@ It can be summarized as follows: the
 inner solver is a Krylov based one. In order to accelerate its convergence, the 
 outer solver periodically applies a least-squares minimization  on the residuals computed by  the inner one. %Tsolver which does not required to be changed.
 
 inner solver is a Krylov based one. In order to accelerate its convergence, the 
 outer solver periodically applies a least-squares minimization  on the residuals computed by  the inner one. %Tsolver which does not required to be changed.
 

-At each outer iteration, the sparse linear system $Ax=b$ is partially 
-solved using only $m$
-iterations of an iterative method, this latter being initialized with the 
-best known approximation previously obtained. 
-GMRES method~\cite{Saad86}, or any of its variants, can be used for instance as an
-inner solver. The current approximation of the Krylov method is then stored inside a matrix
-$S$ composed by the successive solutions that are computed during inner iterations.
+At each  outer iteration,  the sparse linear  system $Ax=b$ is  partially solved
+using only $m$ iterations of  an iterative method, this latter being initialized
+with the last obtained approximation.  GMRES method~\cite{Saad86}, or any of its
+variants, can potentially be used  as inner solver. The current approximation of
+the Krylov  method is then  stored inside  a $n \times  s$ matrix $S$,  which is
+composed by  the $s$  last solutions  that have been  computed during  the inner
+iterations phase.   In the remainder,  the $i$-th column  vector of $S$  will be
+denoted by $S_i$.

 
 

-At each $s$ iterations, the minimization step is applied in order to
+At each $s$ iterations, another kind of minimization step is applied in order to

 compute a new  solution $x$. For that, the previous  residuals of $Ax=b$ are computed by
 the inner iterations with $(b-AS)$. The minimization of the residuals is obtained by  
 \begin{equation}
    \underset{\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{s}}{min}\|b-R\alpha\|_2
 \label{eq:01}
 \end{equation}
 compute a new  solution $x$. For that, the previous  residuals of $Ax=b$ are computed by
 the inner iterations with $(b-AS)$. The minimization of the residuals is obtained by  
 \begin{equation}
    \underset{\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{s}}{min}\|b-R\alpha\|_2
 \label{eq:01}
 \end{equation}

-with $R=AS$. Then the new solution $x$ is computed with $x=S\alpha$.
+with $R=AS$. The new solution $x$ is then computed with $x=S\alpha$.

 
 
 In  practice, $R$  is a  dense rectangular  matrix belonging in  $\mathbb{R}^{n\times s}$,
 
 
 In  practice, $R$  is a  dense rectangular  matrix belonging in  $\mathbb{R}^{n\times s}$,


@@ -648,37 +683,40 @@ appropriate than a single direct method in a parallel context.
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
   \Input $A$ (sparse matrix), $b$ (right-hand side)
   \Output $x$ (solution vector)\vspace{0.2cm}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
   \Input $A$ (sparse matrix), $b$ (right-hand side)
   \Output $x$ (solution vector)\vspace{0.2cm}

-  \State Set the initial guess $x^0$
-  \For {$k=1,2,3,\ldots$ until convergence (error$<\epsilon_{tsirm}$)} \label{algo:conv}
-    \State  $x^k=Solve(A,b,x^{k-1},max\_iter_{kryl})$   \label{algo:solve}
-    \State retrieve error
-    \State $S_{k \mod s}=x^k$ \label{algo:store}
-    \If {$k \mod s=0$ {\bf and} error$>\epsilon_{kryl}$}
+  \State Set the initial guess $x_0$
+  \For {$k=1,2,3,\ldots$ until convergence ($error<\epsilon_{tsirm}$)} \label{algo:conv}
+    \State  $[x_k,error]=Solve(A,b,x_{k-1},max\_iter_{kryl})$   \label{algo:solve}
+    \State $S_{k \mod s}=x_k$ \label{algo:store} \Comment{update column ($k \mod s$) of $S$}
+    \If {$k \mod s=0$ {\bf and} $error>\epsilon_{kryl}$}

       \State $R=AS$ \Comment{compute dense matrix} \label{algo:matrix_mul}
       \State $R=AS$ \Comment{compute dense matrix} \label{algo:matrix_mul}

-            \State $\alpha=Solve\_Least\_Squares(R,b,max\_iter_{ls})$ \label{algo:}
-      \State $x^k=S\alpha$  \Comment{compute new solution}
+            \State $\alpha=Least\_Squares(R,b,max\_iter_{ls})$ \label{algo:}
+      \State $x_k=S\alpha$  \Comment{compute new solution}

     \EndIf
   \EndFor
 \end{algorithmic}
 \label{algo:01}
 \end{algorithm}
 
     \EndIf
   \EndFor
 \end{algorithmic}
 \label{algo:01}
 \end{algorithm}
 

-Algorithm~\ref{algo:01}  summarizes  the principle  of  our  method.  The  outer
-iteration is  inside the for  loop. Line~\ref{algo:solve}, the Krylov  method is
-called for a  maximum of $max\_iter_{kryl}$ iterations.  In practice, we  suggest to set this parameter
-equals to  the restart  number of the  GMRES-like method. Moreover,  a tolerance
-threshold must be specified for the  solver. In practice, this threshold must be
-much  smaller  than the  convergence  threshold  of  the TSIRM  algorithm  (\emph{i.e.}
-$\epsilon_{tsirm}$).  Line~\ref{algo:store}, $S_{k~ mod~ s}=x^k$ consists in copying the
-solution  $x_k$  into the  column  $k~ mod~ s$ of  the  matrix  $S$. After  the
-minimization, the matrix $S$ is reused with the new values of the residuals.  To
-solve the minimization problem, an  iterative method is used. Two parameters are
-required for that: the maximum number of iterations and the threshold to stop the
-method.
+Algorithm~\ref{algo:01} summarizes  the principle  of the proposed  method.  The
+outer iteration is inside the \emph{for} loop. Line~\ref{algo:solve}, the Krylov
+method is called  for a maximum of $max\_iter_{kryl}$  iterations.  In practice,
+we suggest to  set this parameter equal to the restart  number in the GMRES-like
+method. Moreover,  a tolerance  threshold must be  specified for the  solver. In
+practice, this threshold must be  much smaller than the convergence threshold of
+the TSIRM  algorithm (\emph{i.e.},  $\epsilon_{tsirm}$).  We also  consider that
+after  the call of  the $Solve$  function, we  obtain the  vector $x_k$  and the
+$error$, which is defined by $||Ax_k-b||_2$.
+
+  Line~\ref{algo:store},  $S_{k \mod  s}=x_k$ consists  in copying  the solution
+  $x_k$ into the  column $k \mod s$ of $S$.  After  the minimization, the matrix
+  $S$ is reused with the new values of the residuals.  To solve the minimization
+  problem, an  iterative method is used.  Two parameters are  required for that:
+  the maximum number of iterations  ($max\_iter_{ls}$) and the threshold to stop
+  the method ($\epsilon_{ls}$).

 
 Let us summarize the most important parameters of TSIRM:
 \begin{itemize}
 
 Let us summarize the most important parameters of TSIRM:
 \begin{itemize}

-\item $\epsilon_{tsirm}$: the threshold to stop the TSIRM method;
+\item $\epsilon_{tsirm}$: the threshold that stops the TSIRM method;

 \item $max\_iter_{kryl}$: the maximum number of iterations for the Krylov method;
 \item $s$: the number of outer iterations before applying the minimization step;
 \item $max\_iter_{ls}$: the maximum number of iterations for the iterative least-squares method;
 \item $max\_iter_{kryl}$: the maximum number of iterations for the Krylov method;
 \item $s$: the number of outer iterations before applying the minimization step;
 \item $max\_iter_{ls}$: the maximum number of iterations for the iterative least-squares method;


@@ -686,36 +724,39 @@ Let us summarize the most important parameters of TSIRM:
 \end{itemize}
 
 
 \end{itemize}
 
 

-The  parallelisation  of  TSIRM  relies   on  the  parallelization  of  all  its
+The  parallelization  of  TSIRM  relies   on  the  parallelization  of  all  its

 parts. More  precisely, except  the least-squares step,  all the other  parts are
 obvious to  achieve out in parallel. In  order to develop a  parallel version of
 parts. More  precisely, except  the least-squares step,  all the other  parts are
 obvious to  achieve out in parallel. In  order to develop a  parallel version of

-our   code,   we   have   chosen  to   use   PETSc~\cite{petsc-web-page}.    For
-line~\ref{algo:matrix_mul} the  matrix-matrix multiplication is  implemented and
-efficient since the  matrix $A$ is sparse and since the  matrix $S$ contains few
-colums in  practice. As explained  previously, at least  two methods seem  to be
+our   code,   we   have   chosen  to   use   PETSc~\cite{petsc-web-page}.    In
+line~\ref{algo:matrix_mul}, the  matrix-matrix multiplication is  implemented and
+efficient since the  matrix $A$ is sparse and the  matrix $S$ contains few
+columns in  practice. As explained  previously, at least  two methods seem  to be

 interesting to solve the least-squares minimization, CGLS and LSQR.
 
 interesting to solve the least-squares minimization, CGLS and LSQR.
 

-In the following  we remind the CGLS algorithm. The LSQR  method follows more or
-less the same principle but it takes more place, so we briefly explain the parallelization of CGLS which is similar to LSQR.
+In Algorithm~\ref{algo:02} we remind the CGLS algorithm. The LSQR method follows
+more or less the  same principle but it takes more place,  so we briefly explain
+the parallelization of CGLS which is  similar to LSQR.

 
 \begin{algorithm}[t]
 \caption{CGLS}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
   \Input $A$ (matrix), $b$ (right-hand side)
   \Output $x$ (solution vector)\vspace{0.2cm}
 
 \begin{algorithm}[t]
 \caption{CGLS}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
   \Input $A$ (matrix), $b$ (right-hand side)
   \Output $x$ (solution vector)\vspace{0.2cm}

-  \State $r=b-Ax$
-  \State $p=A'r$
-  \State $s=p$
-  \State $g=||s||^2_2$
-  \For {$k=1,2,3,\ldots$ until convergence (g$<\epsilon_{ls}$)} \label{algo2:conv}
-    \State $q=Ap$
-    \State $\alpha=g/||q||^2_2$
-    \State $x=x+alpha*p$
-    \State $r=r-alpha*q$
-    \State $s=A'*r$
-    \State $g_{old}=g$
-    \State $g=||s||^2_2$
-    \State $\beta=g/g_{old}$
+  \State Let $x_0$ be an initial approximation
+  \State $r_0=b-Ax_0$
+  \State $p_1=A^Tr_0$
+  \State $s_0=p_1$
+  \State $\gamma=||s_0||^2_2$
+  \For {$k=1,2,3,\ldots$ until convergence ($\gamma<\epsilon_{ls}$)} \label{algo2:conv}
+    \State $q_k=Ap_k$
+    \State $\alpha_k=\gamma/||q_k||^2_2$
+    \State $x_k=x_{k-1}+\alpha_kp_k$
+    \State $r_k=r_{k-1}-\alpha_kq_k$
+    \State $s_k=A^Tr_k$
+    \State $\gamma_{old}=\gamma$
+    \State $\gamma=||s_k||^2_2$
+    \State $\beta_k=\gamma/\gamma_{old}$
+    \State $p_{k+1}=s_k+\beta_kp_k$

   \EndFor
 \end{algorithmic}
 \label{algo:02}
   \EndFor
 \end{algorithmic}
 \label{algo:02}


@@ -723,9 +764,10 @@ less the same principle but it takes more place, so we briefly explain the paral
 
 
 In each iteration  of CGLS, there is two  matrix-vector multiplications and some
 
 
 In each iteration  of CGLS, there is two  matrix-vector multiplications and some

-classical operations:  dot product, norm, multiplication  and addition on  vectors. All
-these operations are easy to implement in PETSc or similar environment.
-
+classical  operations:  dot  product,   norm,  multiplication,  and  addition  on
+vectors.  All  these  operations are  easy  to  implement  in PETSc  or  similar
+environment.  It should be noticed that LSQR follows the same principle, it is a
+little bit longer but it performs more or less the same operations.

 
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 
 %%%*********************************************************


@@ -733,17 +775,82 @@ these operations are easy to implement in PETSc or similar environment.
 
 \section{Convergence results}
 \label{sec:04}
 
 \section{Convergence results}
 \label{sec:04}

-Let us recall the following result, see~\cite{Saad86}.
+
+
+We can now claim that,

 \begin{proposition}
 \begin{proposition}

-Suppose that $A$ is a positive real matrix with symmetric part $M$. Then the residual norm provided at the $m$-th step of GMRES satisfies:
+\label{prop:saad}
+If $A$ is either a definite positive or a positive matrix and GMRES($m$) is used as solver, then the TSIRM algorithm is convergent. 
+
+Furthermore, let $r_k$ be the
+$k$-th residue of TSIRM, then
+we have the following boundaries:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item when $A$ is positive:

 \begin{equation}
 \begin{equation}

-||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
+||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
+\end{equation}
+where $M$ is the symmetric part of $A$, $\alpha = \lambda_{min}(M)^2$ and $\beta = \lambda_{max}(A^T A)$;
+\item when $A$ is positive definite:
+\begin{equation}
+\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|.

 \end{equation}
 \end{equation}

-where $\alpha = \lambda_min(M)^2$ and $\beta = \lambda_max(A^T A)$, which proves 
-the convergence of GMRES($m$) for all $m$ under that assumption regarding $A$.
+\end{itemize}
+%In the general case, where A is not positive definite, we have
+%$\|r_n\| \le \inf_{p \in P_n} \|p(A)\| \le \kappa_2(V) \inf_{p \in P_n} \max_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |p(\lambda)| \|r_0\|, .$

 \end{proposition}
 
 \end{proposition}
 

+\begin{proof}
+Let us first recall that the residue is under control when considering the GMRES algorithm on a positive definite matrix, and it is bounded as follows:
+\begin{equation*}
+\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{k/2} \|r_0\| .
+\end{equation*}
+Additionally, when $A$ is a positive real matrix with symmetric part $M$, then the residual norm provided at the $m$-th step of GMRES satisfies:
+\begin{equation*}
+||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
+\end{equation*}
+where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined as in Proposition~\ref{prop:saad}, which proves 
+the convergence of GMRES($m$) for all $m$ under such assumptions regarding $A$.
+These well-known results can be found, \emph{e.g.}, in~\cite{Saad86}.
+
+We will now prove by a mathematical induction that, for each $k \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$, 
+$||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{mk}{2}} ||r_0||$ when $A$ is positive, and $\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|$ when $A$ is positive definite.

 
 

+The base case is obvious, as for $k=1$, the TSIRM algorithm simply consists in applying GMRES($m$) once, leading to a new residual $r_1$ that follows the inductive hypothesis due, to the results recalled above.
+
+Suppose now that the claim holds for all $m=1, 2, \hdots, k-1$, that is, $\forall m \in \{1,2,\hdots, k-1\}$, $||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ in the positive case, and $\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|$ in the definite positive one.
+We will show that the statement holds too for $r_k$. Two situations can occur:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item If $k \not\equiv 0 ~(\textrm{mod}\ m)$, then the TSIRM algorithm consists in executing GMRES once. In that case and by using the inductive hypothesis, we obtain either $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ if $A$ is positive, or $\|r_k\| \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{m/2} \|r_{k-1}\|$ $\leqslant$ $\left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|$ in the positive definite case.
+\item Else, the TSIRM algorithm consists in two stages: a first GMRES($m$) execution leads to a temporary $x_k$ whose residue satisfies:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ in the positive case, 
+\item $\|r_k\| \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{m/2} \|r_{k-1}\|$ $\leqslant$ $\left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|$ in the positive definite one,
+\end{itemize}
+and a least squares resolution.
+Let $\operatorname{span}(S) = \left \{ {\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i v_i \Big| k \in \mathbb{N}, v_i \in S, \lambda _i \in \mathbb{R}} \right \}$ be the linear span of a set of real vectors $S$. So,\\
+$\min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-R\alpha ||_2 = \min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-AS\alpha ||_2$
+
+$\begin{array}{ll}
+& = \min_{x \in span\left(S_{k-s+1}, S_{k-s+2}, \hdots, S_{k} \right)} ||b-AS\alpha ||_2\\
+& = \min_{x \in span\left(x_{k-s+1}, x_{k-s}+2, \hdots, x_{k} \right)} ||b-AS\alpha ||_2\\
+& \leqslant \min_{x \in span\left( x_{k} \right)} ||b-Ax ||_2\\
+& \leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}} ||b-\lambda Ax_{k} ||_2\\
+& \leqslant ||b-Ax_{k}||_2\\
+& = ||r_k||_2\\
+& \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||, \textrm{ if $A$ is positive,}\\
+& \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|, \textrm{ if $A$ is}\\
+& \textrm{positive definite,} 
+\end{array}$
+\end{itemize}
+which concludes the induction and the proof.
+\end{proof}
+
+Remark that a similar proposition can be formulated at each time
+the given solver satisfies an inequality of the form $||r_n|| \leqslant \mu^n ||r_0||$,
+with $|\mu|<1$. Furthermore, it is \emph{a priori} possible in some particular cases 
+regarding $A$, 
+that the proposed TSIRM converges while the GMRES($m$) does not.

 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************


@@ -751,11 +858,13 @@ the convergence of GMRES($m$) for all $m$ under that assumption regarding $A$.
 \label{sec:05}
 
 
 \label{sec:05}
 
 

-In order to see the influence of our algorithm with only one processor, we first
-show  a comparison  with the  standard version  of GMRES  and our  algorithm. In
-Table~\ref{tab:01},  we  show  the  matrices  we  have used  and  some  of  them
-characteristics. For all  the matrices, the name, the field,  the number of rows
-and the number of nonzero elements are given.
+In order to see the behavior of our approach when considering only one processor,
+a  first  comparison  with  GMRES  or  FGMRES and  the  new  algorithm  detailed
+previously  has been  experimented.  Matrices  that  have been  used with  their
+characteristics (names, fields, rows,  and nonzero coefficients) are detailed in
+Table~\ref{tab:01}.  These  latter, which are  real-world applications matrices,
+have    been   extracted    from   the    Davis   collection,    University   of
+Florida~\cite{Dav97}.

 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 \begin{center}


@@ -775,26 +884,26 @@ torso3             & 2D/3D problem & 259,156 & 4,429,042 \\
 \label{tab:01}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}
 \label{tab:01}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}

-
-The following  parameters have been chosen  for our experiments.   As by default
-the restart  of GMRES is performed every  30 iterations, we have  chosen to stop
-the GMRES every 30 iterations (\emph{i.e.} $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$).  $s$ is set to 8. CGLS is
-chosen  to minimize  the least-squares  problem with  the  following parameters:
+Chosen parameters  are detailed below.   
+We have  stopped  the  GMRES every  30
+iterations (\emph{i.e.}, $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$), which is the default 
+setting of GMRES.  $s$, for its part, has been set to 8. CGLS 
+ minimizes  the   least-squares  problem   with  parameters

 $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$ and $max\_iter_{ls}=20$.  The external precision is set to
 $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$ and $max\_iter_{ls}=20$.  The external precision is set to

-$\epsilon_{tsirm}=1e-10$.  Those  experiments have been performed  on a Intel(R)
-Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz with the version 3.5.1 of PETSc.
+$\epsilon_{tsirm}=1e-10$.  These  experiments have been performed  on an Intel(R)
+Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz with the 3.5.1 version  of PETSc.

 
 
 
 

-In  Table~\ref{tab:02}, some  experiments comparing  the solving  of  the linear
-systems obtained with the previous matrices  with a GMRES variant and with out 2
-stage algorithm are  given. In the second column, it can  be noticed that either
-gmres or fgmres is used to  solve the linear system.  According to the matrices,
-different  preconditioner is used.   With TSIRM,  the same  solver and  the same
-preconditionner are used.  This Table shows that TSIRM can drastically reduce the
-number of iterations to reach the  convergence when the number of iterations for
-the normal GMRES is more or less  greater than 500. In fact this also depends on
-tow  parameters: the  number  of iterations  to  stop GMRES  and  the number  of
-iterations to perform the minimization.
+Experiments comparing 
+a GMRES variant with TSIRM in the resolution of linear systems are given in  Table~\ref{tab:02}. 
+The  second column describes whether GMRES or FGMRES
+(Flexible GMRES~\cite{Saad:1993}) has been used for linear systems solving.  
+Different preconditioners  have been used according to the matrices.  With  TSIRM, the  same
+solver and the  same preconditionner are used.  This table  shows that TSIRM can
+drastically reduce  the number of iterations  to reach the  convergence when the
+number of iterations for  the normal GMRES is more or less  greater than 500. In
+fact this also depends on two parameters: the number of iterations to stop GMRES
+and the number of iterations to perform the minimization.

 
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]


@@ -815,7 +924,7 @@ torso3             & fgmres / sor  & 37.70 & 565 & 34.97 & 510 \\
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}

-\caption{Comparison of (F)GMRES and 2 stage (F)GMRES algorithms in sequential with some matrices, time is expressed in seconds.}
+\caption{Comparison between sequential standalone (F)GMRES and TSIRM with (F)GMRES (time in seconds).}

 \label{tab:02}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}
 \label{tab:02}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}


@@ -824,28 +933,46 @@ torso3             & fgmres / sor  & 37.70 & 565 & 34.97 & 510 \\
 
 
 
 
 
 

-In order to perform larger  experiments, we have tested some example applications
-of PETSc. Those  applications are available in the ksp part  which is suited for
-scalable linear equations solvers:
+In order to perform larger experiments, we have tested some example applications
+of  PETSc. Those  applications are  available in  the \emph{ksp}  part,  which is
+suited for scalable linear equations solvers:

 \begin{itemize}
 \begin{itemize}

-\item ex15  is an example  which solves in  parallel an operator using  a finite
+\item ex15  is an example  that solves in  parallel an operator using  a finite

   difference  scheme.   The  diagonal  is  equal to  4  and  4  extra-diagonals
   difference  scheme.   The  diagonal  is  equal to  4  and  4  extra-diagonals

-  representing the neighbors in each directions  is equal to -1. This example is
+  representing the neighbors in each directions  are equal to -1. This example is

   used  in many  physical phenomena, for  example, heat  and fluid  flow, wave
   used  in many  physical phenomena, for  example, heat  and fluid  flow, wave

-  propagation...
+  propagation, etc.

 \item ex54 is another example based on 2D problem discretized with quadrilateral
   finite elements. For this example, the user can define the scaling of material
 \item ex54 is another example based on 2D problem discretized with quadrilateral
   finite elements. For this example, the user can define the scaling of material

-  coefficient in embedded circle, it is called $\alpha$.
+  coefficient in embedded circle called $\alpha$.

 \end{itemize}
 \end{itemize}

-For more technical details on  these applications, interested reader are invited
-to  read the  codes available  in the  PETSc sources.   Those problem  have been
-chosen because they  are scalable with many cores. We  have tested other problem
-but they are not scalable with many cores.
-
-In the following larger experiments are described on two large scale architectures: Curie and Juqeen... {\bf description...}\\
+For more technical details on these applications, interested readers are invited
+to read  the codes  available in  the PETSc sources.   Those problems  have been
+chosen because they are scalable with many  cores.
+
+In  the  following   larger  experiments  are  described  on   two  large  scale
+architectures: Curie  and Juqueen.   Both these architectures  are supercomputer
+respectively  composed  of  80,640  cores   for  Curie  and  458,752  cores  for
+Juqueen. Those  machines are respectively hosted  by GENCI in  France and Jülich
+Supercomputing Centre in Germany.  They belongs with other similar architectures
+of the  PRACE initiative (Partnership  for Advanced Computing  in Europe) which
+aims  at  proposing  high  performance supercomputing  architecture  to  enhance
+research  in  Europe.  The  Curie  architecture is  composed  of  Intel  E5-2680
+processors  at 2.7  GHz with  2Gb memory  by core.  The Juqueen  architecture is
+composed of  IBM PowerPC  A2 at  1.6 GHz with  1Gb memory  per core.  Both those
+architecture are equiped with a dedicated high speed network.
+
+
+In  many situations, using  preconditioners is  essential in  order to  find the
+solution of a linear system.  There are many preconditioners available in PETSc.
+For parallel applications all  the preconditioners based on matrix factorization
+are  not  available. In  our  experiments, we  have  tested  different kinds  of
+preconditioners, however  as it is  not the subject  of this paper, we  will not
+present results with many preconditioners. In  practice, we have chosen to use a
+multigrid (mg)  and successive  over-relaxation (sor). For  more details  on the
+preconditioner in PETSc please consult~\cite{petsc-web-page}.

 
 
 
 

-{\bf Description of preconditioners}

 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}


@@ -866,34 +993,36 @@ In the following larger experiments are described on two large scale architectur
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}

-\caption{Comparison of FGMRES and TSIRM with FGMRES for example ex15 of PETSc with two preconditioner (mg and sor) with 25,000 components per core on Juqueen (threshold 1e-3, restart=30, s=12),  time is expressed in seconds.}
+\caption{Comparison of FGMRES and TSIRM with FGMRES for example ex15 of PETSc with two preconditioners (mg and sor) with 25,000 components per core on Juqueen ($\epsilon_{tsirm}=1e-3$, $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$, $s=12$, $max\_iter_{ls}=15$, $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$),  time is expressed in seconds.}

 \label{tab:03}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}
 
 Table~\ref{tab:03} shows  the execution  times and the  number of  iterations of
 \label{tab:03}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}
 
 Table~\ref{tab:03} shows  the execution  times and the  number of  iterations of

-example ex15  of PETSc on the  Juqueen architecture. Differents  number of cores
-are  studied rangin  from  2,048  upto 16,383.   Two  preconditioners have  been
-tested.   For those experiments,  the number  of components  (or unknown  of the
-problems)  per processor  is fixed  to 25,000,  also called  weak  scaling. This
-number can seem relatively small. In fact, for some applications that need a lot
-of  memory, the  number of  components per  processor requires  sometimes  to be
-small.
-
-
-
-In this Table, we  can notice that TSIRM is always faster  than FGMRES. The last
-column shows the ratio between FGMRES and the best version of TSIRM according to
-the minimization  procedure: CGLS or  LSQR. Even if  we have computed  the worst
-case  between CGLS  and LSQR,  it is  clear that  TSIRM is  alsways  faster than
-FGMRES. For this example, the  multigrid preconditionner is faster than SOR. The
-gain  between   TSIRM  and  FGMRES  is   more  or  less  similar   for  the  two
+example ex15  of PETSc on the  Juqueen architecture. Different  numbers of cores
+are studied  ranging from 2,048 up-to  16,383 with the  two preconditioners {\it
+  mg}  and {\it  sor}.   For those  experiments,  the number  of components  (or
+unknowns  of  the problems)  per  core  is fixed  to  25,000,  also called  weak
+scaling. This number  can seem relatively small. In  fact, for some applications
+that  need a  lot of  memory, the  number of  components per  processor requires
+sometimes to  be small. Other parameters  for this application  are described in
+the legend of this Table.
+
+
+
+In  Table~\ref{tab:03},  we  can  notice   that  TSIRM  is  always  faster  than
+FGMRES. The last  column shows the ratio between FGMRES and  the best version of
+TSIRM according  to the minimization  procedure: CGLS or  LSQR. Even if  we have
+computed the worst case between CGLS and  LSQR, it is clear that TSIRM is always
+faster than  FGMRES. For  this example, the  multigrid preconditioner  is faster
+than SOR. The gain between TSIRM and  FGMRES is more or less similar for the two

 preconditioners.  Looking at the number  of iterations to reach the convergence,
 it is  obvious that TSIRM allows the  reduction of the number  of iterations. It
 should be noticed  that for TSIRM, in those experiments,  only the iterations of
 the Krylov solver  are taken into account.  Iterations of CGLS  or LSQR were not
 preconditioners.  Looking at the number  of iterations to reach the convergence,
 it is  obvious that TSIRM allows the  reduction of the number  of iterations. It
 should be noticed  that for TSIRM, in those experiments,  only the iterations of
 the Krylov solver  are taken into account.  Iterations of CGLS  or LSQR were not

-recorded but they are time-consuming. In general each $max\_iter_{kryl}*s$ which
-corresponds to 30*12, there are $max\_iter_{ls}$ which corresponds to 15.
+recorded  but they  are  time-consuming.  In  general each  $max\_iter_{kryl}*s$
+iterations which corresponds to 30*12, there are $max\_iter_{ls}$ iterations for
+the least-squares method which corresponds to 15.

 
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
 \centering
 
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
 \centering


@@ -904,10 +1033,10 @@ corresponds to 30*12, there are $max\_iter_{ls}$ which corresponds to 15.
 
 
 In  Figure~\ref{fig:01}, the number  of iterations  per second  corresponding to
 
 
 In  Figure~\ref{fig:01}, the number  of iterations  per second  corresponding to

-Table~\ref{tab:01}  is  displayed.   It  can  be  noticed  that  the  number  of
-iterations per second of FMGRES is  constant whereas it decrease with TSIRM with
-both preconditioner. This  can be explained by the fact that  when the number of
-core increases the time for the minimization step also increases but, generally,
+Table~\ref{tab:03}  is  displayed.   It  can  be  noticed  that  the  number  of
+iterations per second of FMGRES is  constant whereas it decreases with TSIRM with
+both preconditioners. This  can be explained by the fact that  when the number of
+cores increases the time for the least-squares minimization step also increases but, generally,

 when  the number  of cores  increases,  the number  of iterations  to reach  the
 threshold also increases,  and, in that case, TSIRM is  more efficient to reduce
 the number of iterations. So, the overall benefit of using TSIRM is interesting.
 when  the number  of cores  increases,  the number  of iterations  to reach  the
 threshold also increases,  and, in that case, TSIRM is  more efficient to reduce
 the number of iterations. So, the overall benefit of using TSIRM is interesting.


@@ -922,7 +1051,7 @@ the number of iterations. So, the overall benefit of using TSIRM is interesting.
 \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} 
 \hline
 
 \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} 
 \hline
 

-  nb. cores & threshold   & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM CGLS} &  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM LSQR} & best gain \\ 
+  nb. cores & $\epsilon_{tsirm}$  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{FGMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM CGLS} &  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM LSQR} & best gain \\ 

 \cline{3-8}
              &                       & Time  & \# Iter.  & Time  & \# Iter. & Time  & \# Iter. & \\\hline \hline
   2,048      & 8e-5                  & 108.88 & 16,560  & 23.06  &  3,630  & 22.79  & 3,630   & 4.77 \\
 \cline{3-8}
              &                       & Time  & \# Iter.  & Time  & \# Iter. & Time  & \# Iter. & \\\hline \hline
   2,048      & 8e-5                  & 108.88 & 16,560  & 23.06  &  3,630  & 22.79  & 3,630   & 4.77 \\


@@ -935,23 +1064,56 @@ the number of iterations. So, the overall benefit of using TSIRM is interesting.
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}

-\caption{Comparison of FGMRES  and 2 stage FGMRES algorithms for ex54 of Petsc (both with the MG preconditioner) with 25000 components per core on Curie (restart=30, s=12),  time is expressed in seconds.}
+\caption{Comparison of FGMRES  and TSIRM with FGMRES algorithms for ex54 of Petsc (both with the MG preconditioner) with 25,000 components per core on Curie ($max\_iter_{kryl}=30$, $s=12$, $max\_iter_{ls}=15$, $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$),  time is expressed in seconds.}

 \label{tab:04}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}
 
 
 \label{tab:04}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}
 
 

-In Table~\ref{tab:04}, some experiments with example ex54 on the Curie architecture are reported.
-
+In  Table~\ref{tab:04},  some  experiments   with  example  ex54  on  the  Curie
+architecture are reported.  For this  application, we fixed $\alpha=0.6$.  As it
+can be seen in that Table, the size of the problem has a strong influence on the
+number of iterations to reach the  convergence. That is why we have preferred to
+change the threshold.  If we set  it to $1e-3$ as with the previous application,
+only one iteration is necessary  to reach the convergence. So Table~\ref{tab:04}
+shows the  results of  different executions with  different number of  cores and
+different thresholds. As with the previous example, we can observe that TSIRM is
+faster than  FGMRES. The ratio greatly  depends on the number  of iterations for
+FMGRES to reach the threshold. The greater the number of iterations to reach the
+convergence is, the  better the ratio between our algorithm  and FMGRES is. This
+experiment is  also a  weak scaling with  approximately $25,000$  components per
+core. It can also  be observed that the difference between CGLS  and LSQR is not
+significant. Both can be good but it seems not possible to know in advance which
+one will be the best.
+
+Table~\ref{tab:05} show a strong scaling experiment with the exemple ex54 on the
+Curie  architecture. So  in  this case,  the  number of  unknownws  is fixed  to
+$204,919,225$ and the number of cores ranges from $512$ to $8192$ with the power
+of two.  The  threshold is fixed to $5e-5$ and only  the $mg$ preconditioner has
+been tested. Here again we can  see that TSIRM is faster that FGMRES. Efficiency
+of each algorithm  is reported. It can be noticed that  the efficiency of FGMRES
+is better than  the TSIRM one except with $8,192$ cores  and that its efficiency
+is  greater   that  one   whereas  the  efficiency   of  TSIRM  is   lower  than
+one.  Nevertheless, the ratio  of TSIRM  with any  version of  the least-squares
+method is  always faster.  With $8,192$  cores when the number  of iterations is
+far  more important  for  FGMRES,  we can  see  that it  is  only slightly  more
+important for TSIRM.
+
+In  Figure~\ref{fig:02}  we report  the  number  of  iterations per  second  for
+experiments  reported in  Table~\ref{tab:05}.  This  Figure highlights  that the
+number of iterations  per second is more  of less the same for  FGMRES and TSIRM
+with a little advantage for FGMRES. It  can be explained by the fact that, as we
+have previously explained, that the iterations of the least-squares steps are not
+taken into account with TSIRM.

 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} 
 \hline
 
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} 
 \hline
 

-  nb. cores   & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM CGLS} &  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM LSQR} & best gain & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{efficiency} \\ 
+  nb. cores   & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{FGMRES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM CGLS} &  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM LSQR} & best gain & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{efficiency} \\ 

 \cline{2-7} \cline{9-11}
 \cline{2-7} \cline{9-11}

-                    & Time  & \# Iter.  & Time  & \# Iter. & Time  & \# Iter. &   & GMRES & TS CGLS & TS LSQR\\\hline \hline
+                    & Time  & \# Iter.  & Time  & \# Iter. & Time  & \# Iter. &   & FGMRES & TS CGLS & TS LSQR\\\hline \hline

    512              & 3,969.69 & 33,120 & 709.57 & 5,790  & 622.76 & 5,070  & 6.37  &   1    &    1    &     1     \\
    1024             & 1,530.06  & 25,860 & 290.95 & 4,830  & 307.71 & 5,070 & 5.25  &  1.30  &    1.21  &   1.01     \\
    2048             & 919.62    & 31,470 & 237.52 & 8,040  & 194.22 & 6,510 & 4.73  & 1.08   &    .75   &   .80\\
    512              & 3,969.69 & 33,120 & 709.57 & 5,790  & 622.76 & 5,070  & 6.37  &   1    &    1    &     1     \\
    1024             & 1,530.06  & 25,860 & 290.95 & 4,830  & 307.71 & 5,070 & 5.25  &  1.30  &    1.21  &   1.01     \\
    2048             & 919.62    & 31,470 & 237.52 & 8,040  & 194.22 & 6,510 & 4.73  & 1.08   &    .75   &   .80\\


@@ -961,7 +1123,7 @@ In Table~\ref{tab:04}, some experiments with example ex54 on the Curie architect
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}
 \hline
 
 \end{tabular}

-\caption{Comparison of FGMRES  and 2 stage FGMRES algorithms for ex54 of Petsc (both with the MG preconditioner) with 204,919,225 components on Curie with different number of cores (restart=30, s=12, threshol 5e-5),  time is expressed in seconds.}
+\caption{Comparison of FGMRES  and TSIRM for ex54 of PETSc (both with the MG preconditioner) with 204,919,225 components on Curie with different number of cores ($\epsilon_{tsirm}=5e-5$, $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$, $s=12$, $max\_iter_{ls}=15$, $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$),  time is expressed in seconds.}

 \label{tab:05}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}
 \label{tab:05}
 \end{center}
 \end{table*}


@@ -973,6 +1135,26 @@ In Table~\ref{tab:04}, some experiments with example ex54 on the Curie architect
 \label{fig:02}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:02}
 \end{figure}
 

+
+Concerning the  experiments some  other remarks are  interesting.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item We  have tested other examples of  PETSc (ex29, ex45, ex49).  For all these
+  examples,  we also obtained  similar gain  between GMRES  and TSIRM  but those
+  examples are  not scalable with many  cores. In general, we  had some problems
+  with more than $4,096$ cores.
+\item We have tested many iterative  solvers available in PETSc.  In fact, it is
+  possible to use most of them with TSIRM. From our point of view, the condition
+  to  use  a  solver inside  TSIRM  is  that  the  solver  must have  a  restart
+  feature. More  precisely, the solver must  support to be  stopped and restarted
+  without decrease its  converge. That is why  with GMRES we stop it  when it is
+  naturally  restarted (i.e.  with  $m$ the  restart parameter).   The Conjugate
+  Gradient (CG) and all its variants do not have ``restarted'' version in PETSc,
+  so they  are not  efficient.  They  will converge with  TSIRM but  not quickly
+  because if  we compare  a normal CG  with a CG  for which  we stop it  each 16
+  iterations  for example,  the  normal CG  will  be for  more efficient.   Some
+  restarted CG  or CG variant versions exist  and may be interested  to study in
+  future works.
+\end{itemize}

 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 


@@ -986,13 +1168,25 @@ In Table~\ref{tab:04}, some experiments with example ex54 on the Curie architect
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 

+A novel two-stage iterative  algorithm has been proposed in this article,
+in order to accelerate the convergence Krylov iterative  methods.
+Our TSIRM proposal acts as a merger between Krylov based solvers and
+a least-squares minimization step.
+The convergence of the method has been proven in some situations, while 
+experiments up to 16,394 cores have been led to verify that TSIRM runs
+5 or  7 times  faster than GMRES.

 
 

-future plan : \\
-- study other kinds of matrices, problems, inner solvers\\
-- test the influence of all the parameters\\
-- adaptative number of outer iterations to minimize\\
-- other methods to minimize the residuals?\\
-- implement our solver inside PETSc
+
+For  future  work, the  authors'  intention is  to  investigate  other kinds  of
+matrices, problems, and  inner solvers. In particular, the possibility 
+to obtain a convergence of TSIRM in situations where the GMRES is divergent will be
+investigated. The influence of  all parameters must be
+tested too, while other methods to minimize the residuals must be regarded.  The
+number of outer  iterations to minimize should become  adaptative to improve the
+overall performances of the proposal.   Finally, this solver will be implemented
+inside PETSc, which would be of interest as it would  allow us to test
+all the non-linear  examples and compare our algorithm  with the other algorithm
+implemented in PETSc.

 
 
 % conference papers do not normally have an appendix
 
 
 % conference papers do not normally have an appendix


@@ -1004,7 +1198,7 @@ future plan : \\
 %%%*********************************************************
 \section*{Acknowledgment}
 This  paper  is   partially  funded  by  the  Labex   ACTION  program  (contract
 %%%*********************************************************
 \section*{Acknowledgment}
 This  paper  is   partially  funded  by  the  Labex   ACTION  program  (contract

-ANR-11-LABX-01-01).   We acknowledge PRACE  for awarding  us access  to resource
+ANR-11-LABX-01-01).   We acknowledge PRACE  for awarding  us access  to resources

 Curie and Juqueen respectively based in France and Germany.
 
 
 Curie and Juqueen respectively based in France and Germany.
 
 


@@ -1047,5 +1241,3 @@ Curie and Juqueen respectively based in France and Germany.
 
 % that's all folks
 \end{document}
 
 % that's all folks
 \end{document}

-
-