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

Should iterative refinement be opt-in? #72

Open
ViralBShah opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Should iterative refinement be opt-in? #72

ViralBShah opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

ViralBShah commented Dec 14, 2020

It seems like iterative refinement is the default.

set_phase!(ps, ANALYSIS_NUM_FACT_SOLVE_REFINE)

Discussion on iterative refinement for Julia sparse solvers:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31105#issuecomment-465030232

cc @andreasnoack

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member Author

cc @ranjanan

@ranjanan
Copy link

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member Author

ViralBShah commented Dec 14, 2020

It seems that the intel table that @ranjanan links above is not consistent with pardiso params.

According to the pardiso params, parameter 13 is Analysis, numerical factorization, solve, iterative refinement. In fact, I can't quite tell if there is an easy way to solve without refinement.

@j-fu
Copy link
Collaborator

j-fu commented Apr 10, 2021

Just my 2ct: yes, iterative refinement should be opt-in. May be we want to do e.g. iterative
refinement with IterativeSolvers, or the solution is part of a bigger block preconditioner...

With pardiso, setting iparm[8]=0 should prevent iterative refinement unless pivot perturbation was activated.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants