Version 2 (modified by nicolasmartin, 3 years ago) (diff)

HPC-09_Gurvan — ZDF restructuration with reduced number of lbc_lnk call

Role

Link(s)

PI(S)

  1. Summary
  1. Abstract
  1. Tests

Previewer(s)

  1. Preview

Reviewer(s)

  1. Review

Summary

Action HPC-9_Gurvan : ZDF restructuration with reduced number of lbc_lnk call
PI(S) Gurvan Madec

Digest

Restructuration of all vertical physics packages (ZDF) in order to reduce the number of communication and suppress most (if not all) the key_zdf…

  1. remove avmu, avmv, keep only avm and use an average in the dynzdf_imp (_exp) modules (save mpp comm)
  2. Define tau_i, tau_j, the surface ocean stress at t-point, and remove utau, vtau (stress defined at u- and v-point) to remove the communication phase on utau and vtau. This require to adapt the dynzdf modules.
  3. create the zdf manager that encapsulate all modules that modify avm and avt. =⇒> only one communication phase on those fields at the end of the ZDF manager instead of one by ZDF modules. In the process, we also remove all the key_zdf… replaced by namelist variables.
  4. simplification: introduce a generic routine to perform the inversion of a tri-diagonal matrix and use it in implicit vertical diffusion (DYN and TRA), in TKE and GLS, and in 4th order compact scheme (TRA and DYN).
Dependencies Depends on Gurvan's availability
Target 2017 merge party
Trac Ticket #1883
SVN branch dev_r7881_HPC09_ZDF
Previewer(s) Miguel Castrillo
Reviewer(s) Miguel Castrillo
Status In progress
Links

'.' => '/nemo/wiki/2017WP/HPC-09_Gurvan-ZDF'

Abstract

This section should be completed before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method beforehand.

Description

Implementation

Reference manual and web pages updates

Updated on 06/25/2017 11:56:10 by gm

Once the PI has completed this section, he should send a mail to the previewer(s) asking them to preview the work within two weeks.

Preview

Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent his request.
For each question, an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to reach a "YES" answer for each of the following questions.

Questions Answer Comment
Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?
… … …

Updated on 07/10/2020 15:42:53 by anonymous

Once all "YES" have been reached, the PI can start the development into his development branch.

Tests

Once the development is done, the PI should complete this section below and ask the reviewers to start their review in the lower section.

Questions Answer Comment
Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)?
Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated)
Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test
Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration)
Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development?
If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations?
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
… … …

Updated on 07/10/2020 15:42:53 by anonymous

Review

A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Code changes and documentation

Question Answer Comment
Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step?
Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?
If not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?
Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?
If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available.
… … …

Review Summary
Is the review fully successful?

Updated on 07/10/2020 15:42:53 by anonymous

Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.