PropertyFieldView - #333
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…ays. The only things StaticArrays offers us isbits-ness. But this PropertyFieldView type is also isbits. If we only need properties for e.g. elastoplastic models, then StaticArrays is just fine since we'll usually be under ~10 parameters. However, for viscoelastic models, we could easily get into the dozens or even over a hundred individual parameters where StaticArrays become less competetive and can lead to subtsantial compile times. This PR slightly reverts some things but not by much. Tested against the whole Carina.jl test suite.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #333 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.91% 70.95% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 54 54
Lines 6289 6294 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 4460 4466 +6
+ Misses 1829 1828 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
`PropertyFieldView{D} <: AbstractVector{eltype(D)}` does not do what it
reads like: `eltype` of an unbound TypeVar is `Any`, so the supertype was
`AbstractVector{Any}` and `eltype(properties(...))` came back `Any`.
That is not cosmetic downstream. ConstitutiveModels' `module_props`
builds `SVector{NP, eltype(props)}`, and every `Hyperelastic` and
`LinearElastic` evaluation routes through it, so an `Any` eltype turned
the whole constitutive call into a boxed, dynamically dispatched one.
Measured through Carina's assembly loop on torsion-qs (160k elements,
527,877 DOF, 12 threads), against this branch's parent:
stiffness_action 25.19 ms -> 551.38 ms (21.9x slower)
residual 23.77 ms -> 414.50 ms (17.4x slower)
GPU was unaffected -- 9.83 ms vs 9.70 ms, checksums bit-identical --
because GPUCompiler inlines aggressively enough that SROA recovers the
concrete type before anything can box. Carrying the element type as a
parameter restores CPU to 24.84 ms and 21.63 ms, with the same
checksums.
Separately, `getindex` carried `@propagate_inbounds` but had no
`@boundscheck`, so no bounds check existed at any optimization level.
Since every block's properties share one flat vector, an out-of-range
read silently returned the *next* block's properties rather than
failing: on a three-property block, `p[4]` handed back block 2's first
property. Blocks may now have different property counts, so this is
reachable from an ordinary off-by-one in a material model.
Tests cover both, and `IndexStyle` is declared linear so the generic
AbstractArray fallbacks stop routing through CartesianIndices.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Mota <amota@sandia.gov>
lxmota
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2026
lxmota
left a comment
lxmota
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me after a small fix.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adding PropertyFieldView type so we don't need to resort to StaticArrays. The only things StaticArrays offers us isbits-ness. But this PropertyFieldView type is also isbits. If we only need properties for e.g. elastoplastic models, then StaticArrays is just fine since we'll usually be under ~10 parameters. However, for viscoelastic models, we could easily get into the dozens or even over a hundred individual parameters where StaticArrays become less competetive and can lead to subtsantial compile times. This PR slightly reverts some things but not by much. Tested against the whole Carina.jl test suite.