Skip to content

save state after every coupling iteration in explicit coupling #23

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

Closed
nkr0 wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

save state after every coupling iteration in explicit coupling #23

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0e035ea
save state after every iteration in explicit coupling
nkr0 Nov 27, 2019
5c16d6e
implict boolean
nkr0 Nov 29, 2019
d1a4f5a
save every coupling iteration, not sub-cycle
nkr0 Nov 29, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions adapter/PreciceInterface.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ void Precice_Setup( char * configFilename, char * participantName, SimulationDat
// Initialize coupling data
Precice_InitializeData( sim );

// find if coupling is implicit or explicit. Implicit coupling will return true at the very beginning and explicit will always return false
sim->coupling_explicit = !Precice_IsWriteCheckpointRequired();
Copy link
Member

@MakisH MakisH Nov 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you need such a boolean, it would be better to make is coupling_implicit. Usually we assume that implicit coupling is the special case that requires special treatment. You could then still write if (!coupling_implicit).

But I think you don't need this check in the first place, it should be enough to call what you want always.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@nkr0 nkr0 Nov 28, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure, !coupling_implicit or coupling_explicit is no problem. But a check is needed. Because the call I want to happen always is only in the case of explicit coupling. For implicit coupling it should follow Precice_IsWriteCheckpointRequired() (only at the ends of coupling iterations).


}

void Precice_InitializeData( SimulationData * sim )
Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions adapter/PreciceInterface.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ typedef struct SimulationData {
double coupling_init_dtheta;
double precice_dt;
double solver_dt;
bool coupling_explicit;

} SimulationData;

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions nonlingeo_precice.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1114,10 +1114,10 @@ void nonlingeo_precice(double **cop, ITG *nk, ITG **konp, ITG **ipkonp, char **l

memcpy(&vini[0],&vold[0],sizeof(double)*mt**nk);

if( Precice_IsWriteCheckpointRequired() )
if( Precice_IsWriteCheckpointRequired() || simulationData.coupling_explicit)
Copy link
Member

@MakisH MakisH Nov 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would then almost always be true, right? I understnad that you always want checkpoints to be stored (to trigger some internal update).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@nkr0 nkr0 Nov 28, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For explicit coupling, yes.

{
Precice_WriteIterationCheckpoint( &simulationData, vini );
Precice_FulfilledWriteCheckpoint();
if( Precice_IsWriteCheckpointRequired() ) Precice_FulfilledWriteCheckpoint();
}

for(k=0;k<*nboun;++k){xbounini[k]=xbounact[k];}
Expand Down