Many geo-scientific applications involve boundary value problems arising in simulating electrostatic and electromagnetic fields for geophysical prospecting and subsurface imaging of electrical resistivity. Modeling complex geological media with three-dimensional finite-difference grids gives rise to large sparse linear systems of equations. For such systems, we have implemented three common iterative Krylov solution methods on graphics processing units and compared their performance with parallel host-based versions. The benchmarks show that the device efficiency improves with increasing grid sizes. Limitations are currently given by the device memory resources.
AlumbaughDLNewmanGAPrevostLShadidJN (1996) Three-dimensional wideband electromagnetic modeling on massively parallel computers. Radio Science31: 1–23.
2.
BalaySBrownJBuschelmanKEijkhoutVGroppWDKaushikD. (2010) PETSc Users Manual, Tech. Rep. Number ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.1, Argonne National Laboratory.
3.
BellNGarlandM (2009) Implementing sparse matrix-vector multiplication on throughput-oriented processors. In: Proceedings of Supercomputing ‘09, November.
4.
CommerMNewmanGA (2008) New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International172: 513–535.
5.
CommerMNewmanGACarazzoneJJDickensTAGreenKEWahrmundLAetal. (2008) Massively-parallel electrical-conductivity imaging of hydrocarbons using the Blue Gene/L supercomputer. IBM Journal of Research and Development52: 93–103.
6.
De GersemHLahayeDVandewalleSHameyerK (1999) Comparison of quasi minimal residual and bi-conjugate gradient iterative methods to solve complex symmetric systems arising from time-harmonic simulations. COMPEL18: 298–310.
7.
FreundR (1992) Conjugate gradient type methods for linear systems with complex symmetric coefficient matrices. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing13: 425–448.
8.
FreundRWNachtigalNM (1991) QMR: a quasiminimal residual method for non-Hermitian linear systems. Numerical Mathematics60: 315–339.
9.
HestenesMRStiefelE (1952) Methods of conjugate directions for solving linear systems. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards49: 409–435.
10.
LanczosC (1952) Solution of systems of linear equations by minimized iterations. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards49: 33–53.
11.
NewmanGAAlumbaughDL (2002) Three-dimensional induction logging problems, Part 2: A finite-difference solution. Geophysics67: 484–491.
12.
PinarAHeathMT (1999) Improving performance of sparse matrix-vector multiplication. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing.
13.
SarkarTK (1987) On the application of the generalized biconjugate gradient method. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications1: 223–242.
14.
SmithCFPetersonAFMittraR (1990) The biconjugate gradient method for electromagnetic scattering. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation38: 938–940.
15.
ToledoS (1997) Improving memory system performance of sparse matrix-vector multiplication. In: Proceedings of the 8th SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, March.
16.
TuminaroRSHerouxMHutchinsonSAShadidJN (1999) Official Aztec User's Guide: Version 2.1, Sand Report SAND99-8801J, December1999, Sandia National Laboratories.
17.
WangCFJinJM (1998) Simple and efficient computation of electromagnetic fields in arbitrarily shaped inhomogeneous dielectric bodies using transpose-free QMR and FFT. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques46: 553–558.
18.
XuSLinHXXueW (2010) Sparse matrix-vector multiplication optimizations based on matrix bandwidth reduction using NVIDIA CUDA. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Science, Hong Kong.
