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

BUG: Point cell ownership algorithm will get ghost vertices wrong #3835

Open
connorjward opened this issue Oct 23, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

BUG: Point cell ownership algorithm will get ghost vertices wrong #3835

connorjward opened this issue Oct 23, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@connorjward
Copy link
Contributor

Consider the interval mesh partitioned between 2 processes:

           p0   |      p1
        o-----o | -----o-----o
                |

Rank 0 (p0) will see something like the following:

           p0   |   p1
        o-----o | -----o
                |

Then, on rank 0, if we want to allocate point A to a cell where A is on the ghost vertex:

           p0   |   p1
        o-----o | -----o
                |      A

we run into trouble. If p1 says that A lives inside the rightmost cell, and p0 says that it lives in the middle cell then the current approach cannot distinguish this as both points have "distance to cell" of 0, and an owning rank of 1. In this case rank 0 should drop A but will not, erroneously believing it to live in the middle cell.

To illustrate this, rank 0 sees:

           p0   |   p1
        o-----o | -----o
                |   A

Whereas rank 1 sees:

           p0   |      p1
        o-----o | -----o-----o
                |         A

#3293 fixes this problem for vertices that touch owned and ghost cells. E.g:

           p0   |   p1
        o-----o | -----o
              B |

but for purely ghost vertices will always get this wrong.

Possible solution

I think the fix is to instead use an algorithm where each rank only tries to determine point ownership for cells that it owns and halo data can then be exchanged via PetscSections and StarForests (which are also more scalable than the current approach).

@jrmaddison
Copy link
Contributor

Previously when I've used this approach this makes it difficult to tell if a point is outside the domain, or has fallen into the roundoff 'gap' between two partitions.

@connorjward
Copy link
Contributor Author

Previously when I've used this approach this makes it difficult to tell if a point is outside the domain, or has fallen into the roundoff 'gap' between two partitions.

I was thinking that we would use the existing tolerance behaviour to eagerly claim points into owned cells that actually exist in ghost cells. Then these can be contested in a later step to find the "true" owner.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants