Version 5 (modified by mathiot, 6 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Pierre Mathiot

ticket : #1473

Branch : dev_r5094_UKMO_ISFCLEAN


Description

The main issue is the order of the loop when we need to start from mikt(ji,jj). To order the loop jk/jj/ji instead of jj/ji/jk, the first solution is to create a wmask, wumask and wvmask in order to mask all the variable at w point properly. Like this the mask system can be applied at the top as it is done at the bottom.

In some place we also need to change the order between the initialisation of the interior value and surface value (3D loop jj/ji/jk followed by a 2D loop jj/ji with mikt in it)

Duplication of some routine are done in order to keep the same performance than the one before the merge if ln_isfcav is false (hpg_sco ⇒ hpg_isf and zps_hde ⇒ zps_hde_isf and the old one are restored)

svn command: svn copy svn+ssh://mathiot@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/trunk svn+ssh://mathiot@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/branches/2015/dev_r5094_UKMO_ISFCLEAN -m "#1473. Temporary development branch to improve performance/simplification and orthogonality of the ice shelf code with the other parts of the code." Password: svnserve: warning: cannot set LC_CTYPE locale svnserve: warning: environment variable LANG is en_US.UTF-8 svnserve: warning: please check that your locale name is correct Password: svnserve: warning: cannot set LC_CTYPE locale svnserve: warning: environment variable LANG is en_US.UTF-8 svnserve: warning: please check that your locale name is correct

Committed revision 5096.

Warning: post commit FS processing had error: sqlite[S8]: attempt to write a readonly database

Commit 23/02 : remove all 3 d loops + some missing flags and add 3 masks (wmask, wumask, wvmask). Sette OK and not change in the solution of sette. For ORCA1 (acc), to have the same results we need to force the zgr_isf (bug from the trunk move to this subroutine) and this subroutine is only activated if ln_isfcav. Need also to force zps_hde_isf and hpg_isf as we restore hpg_sco and move the current one to hpg_isf. Commit 02/03 : add some flag and compatibility test + doc. Sette OK and no change in the solution of sette.

Commit 02/03 : restore how e3t and move current e3t (gdepw(jk+1)-gdepw(jk)) in a IF ln_isfcav bloc + change related to this in zpshde. How ice shelf cavity is coded need to have e3t(jk) = (gdepw(jk+1)-gdepw(jk)) for the pressure gradient. The start point for the water column is risfdep(ji,jj) and not 0. So, level in depth can be not aligned (ie can have a different gdep3w with the default e3t definition).

Change in runtime:

  • ORCA1-LIM3 (acc) before : 254.181 s (average) after : 165.250 s (average)
  • ORCA2-LIM2 (mathiot) before/after : -20% of runtime (1y ORCA2 LIM2) on BAS local cluster
  • ORCA2-LIM2 (mathiot) before/after : similar total runtime (1y ORCA2 LIM2) on ARCHER, however, variability of runtime for a same job is about 20% depending of date of test, this test is maybe bias by disk load (or something similar). Timing output show improvement in the modified routines as zdftke, zdfavn, traldf_iso (…)

Testing

Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''YES/NO'''
Other model configurations'''YES/NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on
'''YES/NO/NA'''

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''
'''YES/NO'''

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES/NO '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES/NO '''

If any of these apply, please document the changes required here…….


Resources

''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''


IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES/ NO '''

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….