-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
have we ever mixed QPhiX && DDalphaAMG in the 1+1 HMC? #480
Comments
HI @kostrzewa not clear why you say it might be a bug. The point behind The point why this variable with QPhiX is set to zero is because I didn't try know how to ask QPhiX to partially invert some shifts. Independently on the value of that variable, DDalphaAMG should still take care of computing the remaining shifts ( |
Hi @kostrzewa, DDalphaAMG and QPhiX was not used in the same monomial, due to the outlined issue by Simone. Namely that the multishift solver in QPhiX can not exit without iterating all solutions to the target residual. From such optimization would profit mainly the correction term, but the question would be if that would justified the coding effort (would probably require to add additional parameters to QPhiX). |
@sbacchio @urbach @Finkenrath
I just realised that we might have a bug in tmLQCD + DDalphaAMG + QPhiX if DDalphaAMG with initial guesses is used in the 1+1 sector...
See line 235 below.
tmLQCD/solver/monomial_solve.c
Lines 214 to 256 in 926f87f
I guess, however, that we never used this combination in practice, did we?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: