[Users] Carpet innards: restriction usage...

[Scott Hawley]

Thank you so much!



On 4/10/12 4:06 PM, "Erik Schnetter" <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Scott Hawley <scott.hawley at belmont.edu>
>wrote:
>> How about this?  I came up with this last night, and it _seems_ to
>>work..
>
>The variable "time" may need to be set to cctk_time. Since restriction
>does not perform time interpolation, the only bad effect if you don't
>do so could be that Carpet aborts with an error message complaining
>about an inconsistent time. Or maybe this variable is ignored for
>restriction.
>
>The loop over comm_state should be the outermost loop. For each such
>loop, Carpet communicates, and it is most efficient to pack as many
>communications together as possible. Hence the vi loop should be
>inside the comm_state loop. This is purely for efficiency; the code is
>correct as is.
>
>Yes, your last assert statement does what you assume it does.
>
>> ŠAnd another question:  Does the "base grid" count as reflevel = 0?
>> OrŠmore specifically, if not, how do we restrict on to the "non-refined"
>> grid?
>
>Yes, the base grid has reflevel 0. Restricting means to restrict TO a
>particular level, so you do want to restrict (to) level 0, but
>restricting (to) the finest grid is a no-op (since there are no finer
>grids).
>
>-erik
>
>-- 
>Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
>http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
>