From 1bc1b42cf273826d25bdfa540f553f0fefc3fc68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Kronbichler Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 15:35:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Write introduction. --- examples/step-59/doc/intro.dox | 261 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 261 insertions(+) diff --git a/examples/step-59/doc/intro.dox b/examples/step-59/doc/intro.dox index 35ea5a1d9e..158b645c4a 100644 --- a/examples/step-59/doc/intro.dox +++ b/examples/step-59/doc/intro.dox @@ -11,8 +11,269 @@ within the priority program "Software for Exascale Computing" (SPPEXA).

Introduction

+Matrix-free operator evaluation enables very efficient implementations of +discretization with high-order polynomial bases due to a method called sum +factorization. This concept has been introduced in the step-37 and step-48 +tutorial programs. In this tutorial program, we extend those concepts to +discontinuous Galerkin (DG) schemes that include face integrals, a class of +methods where high orders are particularly widespread. + +The underlying idea of the matrix-free evaluation is the same as for +continuous elements: The matrix-vector product that appears in an iterative +solver or multigrid smoother is not implemented by a classical sparse matrix +kernel, but instead applied implicitly by the evaluation of the underlying +integrals on the fly. For tensor product shape functions that are integrated +with a tensor product quadrature rule, this evaluation is particularly +efficient by using the sum-factorization technique, which decomposes the +initially $(k+1)^{2d}$ operations for interpolation involving $(k+1)^d$ vector +entries with associated shape functions at degree $k$ in $d$ dimensions to +$(k+1)^d$ quadrature points into $d$ one-dimensional operations of cost +$(k+1)^{d+1}$ each. In 3D, this reduces the order of complexity by two powers +in $k$. When measured as the complexity per degree of freedom, the complexity +is $\mathcal O(k)$ in the polynomial degree. Due to the presence of face +integrals in DG, and due to the fact that operations on quadrature points +involve more memory transfer, which both scale as $\mathcal O(1)$, the +observed complexity is often constant for moderate $k\leq 10$. This means that +a high order method can be evaluated with the same throughput in terms of +degrees of freedom per second as a low-order method. + +More information on the algorithms are available in the preprint +
+Fast matrix-free evaluation of +discontinuous Galerkin finite element operators by Martin Kronbichler and +Katharina Kormann, arXiv:1711.03590. +

The symmetric interior penalty formulation for the Laplacian

+For this tutorial program, we exemplify the matrix-free DG framework for the +interior penalty discretization of the Laplacian, i.e., the same scheme as the +one used for the step-39 tutorial program. The discretization of the Laplacian +is given by the following weak form +@f{eqnarray*} +&&\sum_{K\in\text{cells}} \left(\nabla v_h, \nabla u_h\right)_{K}+\\ +&&\sum_{F\in\text{faces}}\Big(-\left<[\![v_h]\!], \{\!\{\nabla u_h\}\!\}\right>_{F} - \left<\{\!\{\nabla v_h\}\!\}, \left<[\![u_h]\!]\right>_{F}\right) + \left<\left<[\![v_h]\!], \sigma \left<[\![u_h]\!]\right>_{F}\Big) \\ +&&= \sum_{K\in\text{cells}}\left(v_h, f\right)_{K}, +@f} +where $[\![v]\!] = v^- \mathbf{n}^- + v^+ \mathbf{n}^+ = \mathbf n^{-} +\left(v^- - v^+\right)$ denotes the directed jump of the quantity $v$ from the +two associated cells $K^-$ and $K^+$, and $\{\!\{v\}\!\}=\frac{v^- + v^+}{2}$ +is the average from both sides. + +The terms in the equation represent the cell integral after integration by +parts, the primal consistency term that arises at the element interfaces due +to integration by parts and insertion of an average flux, the adjoint +consistency term that is added for restoring symmetry of the underlying +matrix, and a penalty term with factor $\sigma$, whose magnitude is equal the +length of the cells in direction normal to face multiplied by $k(k+1)$, see +step-39. The penalty term is chosen such that an inverse estimate holds and +the final weak form is coercive, i.e., positive definite in the discrete +setting. The adjoint consistency term and the penalty term involve the jump +$[\![u_h]\!]$ at the element interfaces, which disappears for the analytic +solution $u$. Thus, these terms are consistent with the original PDE, ensuring +that the method can retain optimal orders of convergence. + +In the implementation below, we implement the weak form above by moving the +normal vector $\mathbf{n}^-$ from the jump terms to the derivatives to form a +normal derivative of the form $\mathbf{n}^-\cdot \nabla u_h$. This +makes the implementation on quadrature points slightly more efficient because +we only need to work with scalar terms rather than tensors, and is +mathematically equivalent. + +For boundary conditions, we use the so-called mirror principle that defines +artificial exterior values $u^+$ by extrapolation from the interior +solution $u^-$ combined with the given boundary data, setting $u^+ = -u^- + 2 +g_\text{D}$ and $\mathbf{n}^-\cdot \nabla u^+ = \mathbf{n}^-\cdot \nabla u^-$ +on Dirichlet boundaries and $u^+=u^-$ and $\mathbf{n}^-\cdot \nabla u^+ = +-\mathbf{n}^-\cdot \nabla u^- + 2 g_\text{N}$ on Neumann boundaries, for given +Dirichlet values $g_\text{D}$ and Neumann values $g_\text{N}$. These +expressions are then inserted in the above weak form. Contributions involving +the known quantities $g_\text{D}$ and $g_\text{N}$ are eventually moved to the +right hand side, whereas the unknown value $u^-$ is retained on the left hand +side and contributes to the matrix terms similarly as interior faces. Upon +these manipulations, the same weak form as in step-39 is obtained. +

Face integration support in MatrixFree and FEFaceEvaluation

+The matrix-free framework of deal.II provides the necessary infrastructure to +implement the action of the discretized equation above. As opposed to the +MatrixFree::cell_loop() that we used in step-37 and step-48, we now build a +code in terms of MatrixFree::loop() that takes three function pointers, one +for the cell integrals, one for the inner face integrals, and one for the +boundary face integrals (in analogy to the design of MeshWorker used in the +step-39 tutorial program). In each of these three functions, we then implement +the respective terms on the quadrature points. For interpolation between the +vector entries and the values and gradients on quadrature points, we use the +class FEEvaluation for cell contributions and FEFaceEvaluation for face +contributions. The basic usage of these functions has been discussed +extensively in the step-37 tutorial program. + +In MatrixFree::loop(), all interior faces are visited exactly once, so one +must make sure to compute the contributions from both the test functions +$v_h^-$ and $v_h^+$. Given the fact that the test functions on both sides are +indeed independent, the weak form above effectively means that we submit the +same contribution to both an FEFaceEvaluation object called `phi_inner` and +`phi_outer` for testing with the normal derivative of the test function, and +values with opposite sign for testing with the values of the test function, +because the latter involves opposite signs due to the jump term. For faces +between cells of different refinement level, the integration is done from the +refined side, and FEFaceEvaluation automatically performs interpolation to a +subface on the coarse side. Thus, a hanging node never appears explicitly in a +user implementation of a weak form. + +The fact that each face is visited exactly once also applies to those faces at +subdomain boundaries between different processors when parallelized with MPI, +where one cell belongs to one processor and one to the other. The setup in +MatrixFree::reinit() splits the faces between the two sides, and eventually +only reports the faces actually handled locally in +MatrixFree::n_inner_face_batches() and MatrixFree::n_boundary_face_batches(), +respectively. Note that, in analogy to the cell integrals discussed in +step-37, deal.II applies vectorization over several faces to use SIMD, working +on something we call a batch of faces with a single instruction. The +face batches are independent from the cell batches, even though the time at +which face integrals are processed is kept close to the time when the cell +integrals of the respective cells are processed, in order to increase the data +locality. + +Another thing that is new in this program is the fact that we no longer split +the vector access like FEEvaluation::read_dof_values() or +FEEvaluation::distribute_local_to_global() from the evaluation and integration +steps, but call combined functions FEEvaluation::gather_evaluate() and +FEEvaluation::integrate_scatter(), respectively. This is useful for face +integrals because, depending on what gets evaluated on the faces, not all +vector entries of a cell must be touched in the first place. Think for example +of the case of the nodal element FE_DGQ with node points on the element +surface: If we are interested in the shape function values on a face, only +$(k+ 1)^{d-1}$ degrees of freedom contribute to them in a non-trivial way (in +a more technical way of speaking, only $(k+1)^{d-1}$ shape functions have a +nonzero support on the face and return +FiniteElement::has_support_on_face()). When compared to the $(k+1)^d$ degrees +of freedom of a cell, this is one power less. + +Now of course we are not interested in only the function values, but also the +derivatives on the cell. Fortunately, there is an element in deal.II that +extends this property of reduced access also for derivatives on faces, the +FE_DGQHermite element. + +

The FE_DGQHermite element

+ +The element FE_DGQHermite belongs to the family of FE_DGQ elements, i.e., its +shape functions are a tensor product of 1D polynomials and the element is +fully discontinuous. As opposed to the nodal character in the usual FE_DGQ +element, the FE_DGQHermite element is a mixture of nodal contributions and +derivative contributions based on a Hermite-like concept. The underlying +polynomial class is Polynomials::HermiteLikeInterpolation and can be +summarized as follows: For cubic polynomials, we use two polynomials to +represent the function value and first derivative at the left end of the unit +interval, $x=0$, and two polynomials to represent the function value and first +derivative and the right end of the unit interval, $x=1$. At the opposite +ends, both the value and first derivative of the shape functions are zero, +ensuring that only two out of the four basis functions contribute to values +and derivative on the respective end. However, we deviate from the classical +Hermite interpolation in not strictly assigning one degree of freedom for the +value and one for the first derivative, but rather allow the first derivative +to be a linear combination of the first and the second shape function. This is +done to improve the conditioning of the interpolation. Also, when going to +degrees beyond three, we add node points in the element interior in a +Lagrange-like fashion, combined with double zeros in the points $x=0$ and +$x=1$. The position of these extra nodes is determined by the zeros of some +Jacobi polynomials as explained in the description of the class +Polynomials::HermiteLikeInterpolation. + +Using this element, we only need to access $2(k+1)^{d-1}$ degrees of freedom +for computing both values and derivatives on a face. The check whether the +Hermite property is fulfilled is done transparently inside +FEFaceEvaluation::gather_evaluate() and FEFaceEvaluation::integrate_scatter() +that check the type of the basis and reduce the access to data if +possible. Obviously, this would not be possible if we had separated +FEFaceEvaluation::read_dof_values() from FEFaceEvaluation::evaluate(), because +the amount of entries we need to read depends on the type of the derivative +(only values, first derivative, etc.) and thus must be given to +`read_dof_values()`. + +This optimization is not only useful for computing the face integrals, but +also for the MPI ghost layer exchange: In a naive exchange, we would need to +send all degrees of freedom of a cell to another processor if the other +processor is responsible for computing the face's contribution. Since we know +that only some of the degrees of freedom in the evaluation with +FEFaceEvaluation are touched, it is natural to only exchange the relevant +ones. The MatrixFree::loop() function has support for a selected data exchange +when combined with LinearAlgebra::distributed::Vector. To make this happen, we +need to tell the loop what kind of evaluation on faces we are going to do, +using an argument of type MatrixFree::DataAccessOnFaces, as can be seen in the +implementation of `LaplaceOperator::vmult()` below. The way data is exchanged +in that case is as follows: The ghost layer data in the vector still pretends +to represent all degrees of freedom, such that FEFaceEvaluation can continue +to read the values as if the cell were a locally owned one. The data exchange +routines take care of the task for packing and unpacking the data into this +format. While this sounds pretty complicated, we will show in the results +section below that this really pays off by comparing the performance to a +baseline code that does not specify the data access on faces. +

An approximate block-Jacobi smoother using the fast diagonalization method

+ +In the tradition of the step-37 program, we again solve a Poisson problem with +a geometric multigrid preconditioner inside a conjugate gradient +solver. Instead of computing the diagonal and use the basic +PreconditionChebyshev as a smoother, we choose a different strategy in this +tutorial program. We implement a block-Jacobi preconditioner, where a block +refers to all degrees of freedom on a cell. Rather than building the full cell +matrix and applying its LU factorization (or inverse) in the preconditioner +— an operation that would be heavily memory bandwidth bound and thus +pretty slow — we approximate the inverse of the block by a special +technique called fast diagonalization method. + +The idea of the method is to take use of the structure of the cell matrix. In +case of the Laplacian with constant coefficients discretized on a Cartesian +mesh, the cell matrix $L$ can be written as +@f{align*}{ +L &= A_1 \otimes M_0 + M_1 \otimes A_0 +@f} +in 2D and +@f{align*}{ +L &= A_2 \otimes M_1 \otimes M_0 + M_2 \otimes A_1 \otimes M_0 + M_2 \otimes M_1 \otimes A_0 +@f} +in 3D. The matrices $A_0$ and $A_1$ denote the 1D Laplace matrix (including +the cell and face term associated to the current cell values $u^-_h$ and +$v^-_h$) and $M_0$ and $M_1$ are the mass matrices. Note that this simple +tensor product structure is lost once there are non-constant coefficients on +the cell or the geometry is not constant any more. We mention that a similar +setup could also be used to replace the computed integrals with this final +tensor product form of the matrices, which would cut the operations for the +operator evaluation into less than half. However, given the fact that this +only holds for Cartesian cells and constant coefficients, which is a pretty +narrow case, we refrain from pursuing this idea. + +Interestingly, the exact inverse of the matrix $L$ can be found through tensor +products due to a method introduced by R. E. Lynch, J. R. Rice, +D. H. Thomas, Direct solution of partial difference equations by tensor +product methods, Numerische Mathematik 6, 185-199 from 1964, +@f{align*}{ +L^{-1} &= S_1 \otimes S_0 (\Lambda_1 \otimes I + I \otimes \Lambda_0)^{-1} +S_1^\mathrm T \otimes S_0^\mathrm T, +@f} +where $S_d$ is the matrix of eigenvectors to the generalized eigenvalue problem +in the given tensor direction $d$: +@f{align*}{ +A_d s &= \lambda M_d s, \quad d = 0, \ldots,\mathrm{dim-1}, +@f} +and $\Lambda_d$ is the diagonal matrix representing the generalized +eigenvalues $\lambda$. Note that the vectors $s$ are such that they +simultaneously diagonalize $A_d$ and $M_d$, i.e. $S_d^{\mathrm T} A_d S_d = +\Lambda_d$ and $S_d^{\mathrm T} M_d S_d = I$. + +The deal.II library implements a class using this concept, called +TensorProductMatrixSymmetricSum. + +For the sake of this program, we stick with constant coefficients and +Cartesian meshes, even though an approximate version based on tensor products +would still be possible for a more general mesh, and the operator evaluation +itself is of course generic. Also, we do not bother with adaptive meshes where +the multigrid algorithm would need to get access to flux matrices over the +edges of different refinement, as explained in step-39. One thing we do, +however, is to still wrap our block-Jacobi preconditioner inside +PreconditionChebyshev. That class relieves us from finding an appropriate +relaxation parameter (which would be around 0.7 in 2D and 0.5 in 3D for the +block-Jacobi smoother), and often increases smoothing efficiency a bit over +plain Jacobi smoothing in that it enables lower the time to solution when +setting the degree of the Chebyshev polynomial to one or two. -- 2.39.5