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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

DoFHandlerPolicy: Avoid one write access to an array #14114

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 19, 2022
Merged

DoFHandlerPolicy: Avoid one write access to an array #14114

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
30 changes: 17 additions & 13 deletions source/dofs/dof_handler_policy.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -990,17 +990,14 @@ namespace internal
* Returns the final number of degrees of freedom, which is the number
* of all valid DoF indices in @p new_dof_indices.
*/
template <int dim, int spacedim>
static types::global_dof_index
enumerate_dof_indices_for_renumbering(
std::vector<types::global_dof_index> &new_dof_indices,
const std::vector<
std::map<types::global_dof_index, types::global_dof_index>>
&all_constrained_indices,
const DoFHandler<dim, spacedim> &)
& all_constrained_indices,
const types::global_dof_index start_dof_index)
{
Assert(all_constrained_indices.size() == dim, ExcInternalError());

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why did this check go away?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The only reason we had a dim template argument and passed in a DoFHandler was to ensure this size. Now I changed this to not pass in the unnecessary DoFHandler argument. It felt silly to pass in dim instead just to get the assertion working. As this is an internal interface I can't see that this assertion would help in detecting some bugs. If you want, I can add the check at the place we call this function.

// first preset the new DoF indices that are identities
for (const auto &constrained_dof_indices : all_constrained_indices)
for (const auto &p : constrained_dof_indices)
Expand All @@ -1013,7 +1010,7 @@ namespace internal
}

// then enumerate the rest
types::global_dof_index next_free_dof = 0;
types::global_dof_index next_free_dof = start_dof_index;
for (auto &new_dof_index : new_dof_indices)
if (new_dof_index == enumeration_dof_index)
new_dof_index = next_free_dof++;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1073,7 +1070,7 @@ namespace internal
const types::global_dof_index n_dofs =
enumerate_dof_indices_for_renumbering(renumbering,
all_constrained_indices,
dof_handler);
0);

renumber_dofs(renumbering, IndexSet(0), dof_handler, check_validity);

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3715,11 +3712,19 @@ namespace internal
// the order in which we handle Phases 2 and 3 is important,
// since we want to clarify ownership of degrees of freedom before
// we actually unify and enumerate their indices. otherwise, we could
// end up having a degee of freedom to which only invalid indices will
// end up having a degree of freedom to which only invalid indices will
// be assigned.
types::global_dof_index n_identity_constrained_indices = 0;
for (const auto &constrained_indices : all_constrained_indices)
for (const auto index : constrained_indices)
if (renumbering[index.first] != numbers::invalid_dof_index)
++n_identity_constrained_indices;

const types::global_dof_index n_locally_owned_dofs =
Implementation::enumerate_dof_indices_for_renumbering(
renumbering, all_constrained_indices, *dof_handler);
std::count(renumbering.begin(),
renumbering.end(),
enumeration_dof_index) -
n_identity_constrained_indices;

// --------- Phase 4: shift indices so that each processor has a unique
// range of indices
Expand All @@ -3733,9 +3738,8 @@ namespace internal
AssertThrowMPI(ierr);

// make dof indices globally consecutive
for (auto &new_index : renumbering)
if (new_index != numbers::invalid_dof_index)
new_index += my_shift;
Implementation::enumerate_dof_indices_for_renumbering(
renumbering, all_constrained_indices, my_shift);

// now re-enumerate all dofs to this shifted and condensed
// numbering form. we renumber some dofs as invalid, so
Expand Down