Version 4 (modified by techene, 14 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 11/02/20 13:25:16 by techene

The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.

  1. Summary
  2. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review


Action optimisation of the vertical scale factor e3 computation
PI(S) Techene, Madec
Digest compute e3 on the fly from e3_0(:,:,:,Ktl) * ( 1 + ssh(:,:,Ktl) / h_0( :,: ) * mask( :,:,: ) instead of storing e3t/u/v/w/f…
Dependencies If any
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/2020/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Madec
Reviewer(s) Madec
Ticket #XXXX


The current e3[P] at P-point computation uses interpolation of the r3t 4D table at P = {u-, v-, w-, f-, uw-, vw-} points. This means 7 4D tables stored in memory. The proposed optimisation consists in computing e3[P](ji,jj,jk,Ktl) on the fly using the r3[P] = ssh[P] / h_0 and the e3[P]_0. r3[P] is a 2D table, then this means only 4 2D tables stored in memory. z-tilde management is done through e3[P]_0 that may varies with time in the z-tilde case. Asselin filter management is done recomputing r3[P] directly with the filtered ssh.


Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.
List the Fortran modules and subroutines to be created/edited/deleted.
Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists),
give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

1/ REFERENCE version change the way to compute the e3 using ssh instead of interpolating
For this we need to modify :

  • cfgs/GYRE_PISCES/cpp_GYRE_PISCES.fcm (top de-activation)
  • src/OCE/DOM/dom_oce.F90 (declaration and allocation of new variable)
  • src/OCE/DOM/domain.F90 (initialisation of h new variables)
  • src/OCE/DOM/dommsk.F90 (initialisation of mask new variable)
  • src/OCE/DOM/domvvl.F90 (dom_vvl_interpol and dom_vvl interpol_3d)
  • src/OCE/DYN/dynatf.F90 (change but no effect since ln_dynadv_vec = .true.)
  • src/OCE/TRA/traatf.F90 (change the e3t update with Asselin filter)
  • src/OCE/step.F90 (change the ordering ssh >> tra >> dyn)


Documentation updates

Using previous parts, define the main changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).


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 the request to the previewer(s).
Then an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to find a consensus

Possible bottlenecks:

  • the methodology
  • the flowchart and list of routines to be changed
  • the new list of variables wrt coding rules
  • the summary of updates in literature

Once an agreement has been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his branch.


Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.

This part should contain the detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test

Regular checks:

  • Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
  • Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
  • 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 impact as expected 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?


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


  • 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 development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
  • Is the project literature (manual, guide, web, …) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?


Is the review fully successful? If not, please indicate what is still missing

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