I'd like to take a stab at replacing the box relaxation smoother we currently have with a PETSc smoother. This would be beneficial for a few reasons:
a) The box relaxation solve takes the largest portion of time (~90%) during the fluid solve, and a PETSc smoother would yield significant time savings. This will also enable us to scale to 3D (Issue https://github.com/abarret/multiphase-stokes/issues/39).
b) Physical Boundary conditions could be baked into the PETSc matrix instead of having to use switch cases in the current box relaxation implementation to handle system size changes due to physical BCs (Issue https://github.com/abarret/multiphase-stokes/issues/56).
I'd like to take a stab at replacing the box relaxation smoother we currently have with a PETSc smoother. This would be beneficial for a few reasons:
a) The box relaxation solve takes the largest portion of time (~90%) during the fluid solve, and a PETSc smoother would yield significant time savings. This will also enable us to scale to 3D (Issue https://github.com/abarret/multiphase-stokes/issues/39).
b) Physical Boundary conditions could be baked into the PETSc matrix instead of having to use switch cases in the current box relaxation implementation to handle system size changes due to physical BCs (Issue https://github.com/abarret/multiphase-stokes/issues/56).