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

[Martin Losch]

OK,then Iet’s wait until Monday,

Martin

> On 28. Jul 2017, at 14:50, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> These experiments were already failing before, in the same way,
> so I am not worried too much. 
> Now some tests are not running everyday (I alternate -fast and -devel), 
> so it might be good to wait at least an other day (to pass more -devel tests).
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:58:35AM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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