Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Izumi updates #321

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jun 5, 2020
Merged

Izumi updates #321

merged 13 commits into from
Jun 5, 2020

Conversation

dabail10
Copy link
Contributor

@dabail10 dabail10 commented Jun 4, 2020

For detailed information about submitting Pull Requests (PRs) to the CICE-Consortium,
please refer to: https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/About-Us/wiki/Resource-Index#information-for-developers

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    Compiler updates on izumi.
  • Developer(s):
    dabail10 (D. Bailey)
  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.
  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/icepack_by_hash_forks#b299062d2e46acd561ca329a9434aff03fc338c5
  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?
    • bit for bit
    • different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on CICE or any other models?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/.)
    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:
    I only had baselines for intel and nag before the compiler upgrades. There also seem to be some issues with gnu debug to sort out.

@dabail10 dabail10 requested a review from apcraig June 4, 2020 22:58
@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

apcraig commented Jun 4, 2020

Thanks Dave. I think at the very least, we'll want to run full test suites with pgi and gnu even if we don't have a baseline to compare to. If we are doing it, we might as well create a baseline. Or you can use /scratch/cluster/tcraig/ICEPACK_BASELINES_MASTER/icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 which are the full test suites from last weekend's testing. Just do an

ln -s $MY_ICEPACK_BASELINES_DIR /scratch/cluster/tcraig/ICEPACK_BASELINES_MASTER/icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005

and then --bcmp icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005.

Is it likely the same module updates are going to work in CICE? I see you noted problems with gnu debug, is that in Icepack or CICE or both? Do we want to work on that before merging or after?

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 4, 2020

Excellent. I didn't know where the baselines were sitting on izumi. I will re-run with gnu and pgi. There might be a compiler issue with gnu and I haven't tried with CICE yet.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 4, 2020

Mark is rebooting izumi tomorrow, so I will wait until after that.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 5, 2020

Just an update. I ran the comparison against your baselines and everything was bfb that was there. There was a lot of missing baselines and the 30 GNU tests are still failing today. I'm adding some print statements.

538 measured results of 538 total results
389 of 538 tests PASSED
0 of 538 tests PENDING
119 of 538 tests MISSING data
30 of 538 tests FAILED

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 5, 2020

My sandbox is /home/dbailey/CICE_master. The testsuite is izumi2. I ran base_suite.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 5, 2020

Sorry, my brain is not working today.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Jun 5, 2020

My testing is done for Icepack. A couple notes.

  1. All tests are bfb for intel, gnu, and nag.

  2. There is a bug fix here that was caught by gnu debug.

  3. There was one missing test in your baselines:
    MISS izumi_intel_restart_col_1x1_bgcISPOL compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 missing-data

  4. All of the PGI tests are not bfb. This indicates changes to the compiler.

FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_diag1_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_bgcISPOL_debug compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_bgcNICE_debug compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_bgcsklNICE_debug compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_run1year_thermo1 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_run1year_swccsm3 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_alt03_debug_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_alt04_debug_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_dt30min_leap_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_dyn_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_fsd12_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_smoke_col_1x1_debug_fsd1_run1year compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_debug compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_diag1 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_pondcesm compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_pondlvl compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_pondtopo compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_bgcISPOL compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_thermo1 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_swccsm3 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_isotope compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_alt01 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_alt02 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_alt03 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_alt04 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_dyn compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data
FAIL izumi_pgi_restart_col_1x1_fsd12 compare icepack.09a5e19f00.200530-100005 different-data

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

apcraig commented Jun 5, 2020

Excellent, thanks @dabail10! For reference, the full test suite results can be seen here,

https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/icepack_by_hash_forks#b299062d2e46acd561ca329a9434aff03fc338c5

I will merge this unless you feel there are any other outstanding issues.

@apcraig apcraig merged commit fdc7479 into CICE-Consortium:master Jun 5, 2020
@dabail10 dabail10 deleted the izumi branch October 4, 2022 17:41
lettie-roach pushed a commit to lettie-roach/Icepack that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants