From b86c85516c6889f5d743154ed489941a59ae307b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: couturie <raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.Fr>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:22:20 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] new
---
IJHPCN/paper.tex | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/IJHPCN/paper.tex b/IJHPCN/paper.tex
index 21fa922..4c711cc 100644
--- a/IJHPCN/paper.tex
+++ b/IJHPCN/paper.tex
@@ -776,25 +776,6 @@ taken into account with TSIRM.
\end{figure}
-Concerning the experiments some other remarks are interesting.
-\begin{itemize}
-\item We have tested other examples of PETSc/KSP (ex29, ex45, ex49). For all these
- examples, we have also obtained similar gains 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 decreasing its convergence. That is why with GMRES we stop it when it
- is naturally restarted (\emph{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 which is stopped and
- restarted every 16 iterations (for example), the normal CG will be far more
- efficient. Some restarted CG or CG variant versions exist and may be
- interesting to study in future works.
-\end{itemize}
%%%*********************************************************
%%%*********************************************************
@@ -803,26 +784,6 @@ Concerning the experiments some other remarks are interesting.
\subsection{Nonlinear problems in parallel}
-\begin{table*}[htbp]
-\begin{center}
-\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
-\hline
-
- nb. cores & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{FGMRES/ASM} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TSIRM CGLS/ASM} & gain& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{FGMRES/HYPRE} \\
-\cline{2-5} \cline{7-8}
- & Time & \# Iter. & Time & \# Iter. & & Time & \# Iter. \\\hline \hline
- 512 & 5.54 & 685 & 2.5 & 570 & 2.21 & 128.9 & 9 \\
- 2048 & 14.95 & 1,560 & 4.32 & 746 & 3.48 & 335.7 & 9 \\
- 4096 & 25.13 & 2,369 & 5.61 & 859 & 4.48 & >1000 & -- \\
- 8192 & 44.35 & 3,197 & 7.6 & 1083 & 5.84 & >1000 & -- \\
-
-\hline
-
-\end{tabular}
-\caption{Comparison of FGMRES and TSIRM for ex45 of PETSc/KSP with two preconditioner (ASM and HYPRE) having 25,000 components per core on Curie ($\epsilon_{tsirm}=1e-10$, $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$, $s=12$, $max\_iter_{ls}=15$, $\epsilon_{ls}=1e-40$), time is expressed in seconds.}
-\label{tab:06}
-\end{center}
-\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
@@ -877,10 +838,39 @@ Concerning the experiments some other remarks are interesting.
\end{table*}
-\subsection{Influcence of parameters for TSIRM}
+\subsection{Influence of parameters for TSIRM}
+
+
+
+
+
+\subsection{Experiments conclusions }
+
+{\bf A refaire}
+
+Concerning the experiments some other remarks are interesting.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item We have tested other examples of PETSc/KSP (ex29, ex45, ex49). For all these
+ examples, we have also obtained similar gains 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 decreasing its convergence. That is why with GMRES we stop it when it
+ is naturally restarted (\emph{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 which is stopped and
+ restarted every 16 iterations (for example), the normal CG will be far more
+ efficient. Some restarted CG or CG variant versions exist and may be
+ interesting to study in future works.
+\end{itemize}
%%ENDNEW
+
%%%*********************************************************
%%%*********************************************************
\section{Conclusion}
--
2.39.5