[MITgcm-devel] [altMITgcm/MITgcm66h] Bugfix/scratch files (#11)

[Martin Losch]

Hi Jean-Michel,

it looks like some forward tests actually do fail since my change to eeset_parms.F, e.g. here:
svante linux_amd64_pgf77+mth.fast ( the corresponding linux_amd64_pgf77+mth.dvlp looks OK)

Y Y Y N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   aim.5l_cs
Y Y Y N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   aim.5l_cs.thSI
Y Y Y N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   aim.5l_Equatorial_Channel
Y Y Y N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   aim.5l_LatLon

Y Y N N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   hs94.cs-32x32x5
Y Y N N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   hs94.cs-32x32x5.impIGW

Y Y N N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . N/O   short_surf_wave

The comile time error (hs94.cs-32x32x5, short_surf_wave) does not look related to me:

pgf77 -byteswapio -Ktrap=fp -mp -tp k8-64 -pc=64 -O2 -Mvect=sse  -c ini_dynvars.f
PGFTN-F-0007-Subprogram too large to compile at this optimization level  (ini_dynvars.f)
PGFTN/x86-64 Linux 16.9-0: compilation aborted
Makefile:1653: recipe for target 'ini_dynvars.o' failed
make[1]: *** [ini_dynvars.o] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/net/fs09/d0/jm_c/test_svante/MITgcm_pgiMth/verification/hs94.cs-32x32x5/build'
Makefile:1561: recipe for target 'fwd_exe_target' failed
make: *** [fwd_exe_target] Error 2

but the aim.* experiments loose their threads. 
>>> Error: _mp_pcpu_reset: lost thread
Can that be related to closing some files?

Martin

> On 27. Jul 2017, at 00:22, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> two things:
> 1) I've checked that MPI_COMM_RANK is not blocking (can be called
>  by only a subset of procs) so I added this call in the OASIS block
>  and add argument "procId" to EESET_PARMS as suggested before.
>  This should make your coming set of changes simpler.
> 2) the set of changes you propose seems good to me. And for now,
> I would set this USE_FORTRAN_SCRATCH_FILES in CPP_EEOPTIONS.h 
> and not worry about genmake_local.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:16:45AM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Michel,
>> 
>> I suggest to test this now as you say, i.e. check in an eeset_parms.F where only the appropriate close statements are ammended with STATUS=???DELETE??? (which in my opinion should always work, since this option is F77 standard, but you never know ???), but also have (at least) one testreport-verification-experiment use the USE_FORTRAN_SCRATCH_FILES flag, so that it is always tested (that???s a bit annoying, since it would be the only experiment with it???s own CPP_EEOPTIONS.h file, or can this be put into some genmake_local?)
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>>> On 25. Jul 2017, at 18:17, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> An other thing:
>>> Are we 100% sure that closing a scratch unit file with status "delete" 
>>> is completly standard on all platforms & compilers ? If not, we could
>>> test just this independently (i.e., check-in and see how daily test run). 
>>> The reason is that when someone chose to use USE_FORTRAN_SCRATCH_FILES,
>>> (which is not going to be the default and therefore not tested) we need to be 
>>> sure that the close instruction is OK.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel