Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updating IBlank #1235

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Updating IBlank #1235

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

psakievich
Copy link
Contributor

I am not sure update shared is the right operation. It seems like if a cell is detected as fringe anywhere it should be fringe even if it is not the owner. In this case parallel_max makes more sense to me. I have not tested this.

This could explain the behavior Exawind/exawind-driver#65

I am not sure update shared is the right operation. It seems like if a cell is detected as fringe anywhere it should be fringe even if it is not the owner.  In this case `parallel_max` makes more sense to me.

This could explain the behavior Exawind/exawind-driver#65
Copy link
Contributor

@alanw0 alanw0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For entities that are shared among multiple MPI ranks, copy_owned_to_shared over-writes the non-owners' values with the owners' values.
parallel_max will over-write all ranks' values with the max of all ranks' values.

@mbkuhn
Copy link
Contributor

mbkuhn commented Feb 2, 2024

After getting into the issues with Ilker and Wyatt, this change does get at the problem. However, to fix the iblank array, it need to be "parallel_min" instead of "parallel_max", because the value of -1 needs to trump the other values. Though this fixes the iblank array for nalu-wind, the data pathways still don't exist for the nodes whose iblank values have been corrected. This leaves them uninitialized, preventing nalu-wind from going forward (the code crashes).

We concluded that the underlying issue isn't this part of nalu-wind, but it is in TIOGA itself (it should get the same answer for a node that is shared by two different chunks). Because of that, it makes the most sense to address this bug through TIOGA directly, and Ilker has some ideas for doing that.

@psakievich psakievich closed this Feb 5, 2024
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