enable asyncio using pio by jedwards4b · Pull Request #325 · ESCOMP/CMEPS

jedwards4b · 2022-12-06T22:58:02Z

Description of changes

Allows IO tasks to be independent of compute tasks in cesm

Specific notes

(testing in progress)
Contributors other than yourself, if any:
Depends on share (ESCOMP/CESM_share#37) and cime (ESMCI/cime#4340).

CMEPS Issues Fixed (include github issue #):

Are changes expected to change answers? (specify if bfb, different at roundoff, more substantial)

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?

Testing performed

Testing performed if application target is CESM:

(recommended) CIME_DRIVER=nuopc scripts_regression_tests.py
- machines:
- details (e.g. failed tests):
(recommended) CESM testlist_drv.xml
- machines and compilers:
- details (e.g. failed tests):
(optional) CESM prealpha test
- machines and compilers cheyenne intel
- details (e.g. failed tests): results consistant with cesm2_3_alpha10d
(other) please described in detail
- machines and compilers
- details (e.g. failed tests):

Testing performed if application target is UFS-coupled:

(recommended) UFS-coupled testing
- description:
- details (e.g. failed tests):

Testing performed if application target is UFS-HAFS:

(recommended) UFS-HAFS testing
- description:
- details (e.g. failed tests):

Hashes used for testing:

CESM:
- repository to check out: https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM.git
- branch/hash:
UFS-coupled, then umbrella repostiory to check out and associated hash:
- repository to check out:
- branch/hash:
UFS-HAFS, then umbrella repostiory to check out and associated hash:
- repository to check out:
- branch/hash:

billsacks

Thanks a lot for your work on this @jedwards4b ! This is a really exciting new feature!

I have a few comments below. Most of them are minor & easy. The main one that might be more involved is my long comment, particularly the second paragraph starting "Part of what I'm wondering about here...". Let me know if you'd like to talk about this.

billsacks · 2022-12-07T13:57:43Z

         specRoutine=SetModelServices, rc=rc)
    if (chkerr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return

+    ! ModifyCplLists is a NUOPC specialization which happens after Advertize but before Realize


This comment should be changed to say "PostChildrenAdvertise is a..."

billsacks · 2022-12-07T14:11:20Z

+          if(pio_asyncio_stride == 0 .or. modulo(n,pio_asyncio_rootpe+1) .ne. 0) then
+             petList(petcnt) = currentpet
+             petcnt = petcnt+1
+             if (currentpet == localPet) comp_task=.true.
+          else
+             asyncio_petlist(iopetcnt) = currentpet
+             iopetcnt = iopetcnt + 1
+             if (currentpet == localPet) asyncio_task=.true.
+          endif


Does one of these blocks (I'm thinking the first one) apply when not using asyncio? If so, I think this would be more clear and robust if there was an explicit check on whether asyncio is being used, or at least a comment here explaining this.

Part of what I'm wondering about here is whether there is an assumption here - and maybe elsewhere - that, if you're not using asyncio, then pio_asyncio_ntasks, pio_asyncio_stride and pio_asyncio_rootpe are at their default values. I'm imagining a scenario where someone first enables asyncio and tweaks those settings, but then wants to try rerunning with asyncio disabled. Do they need to explicitly reset those three variables to their defaults in that situation? If so, that seems error-prone. Can this (and maybe some other code) be written to examine pio_async_interface and ignore those three variables if that is false?

I think that you may be right here. I'll create a few scenarios to test this and put in a fix if needed.

It's difficult to get to the pio_async_interface flags at this point in the fortran and I am thinking about implementing something in the buildnml instead - would that be acceptable?

Sure, that sounds like a good plan - thanks. Then can you just add a comment here saying which of these blocks (if either) applies to the case without asyncio?

billsacks · 2022-12-07T15:52:59Z

+!    call driver_pio_init(driver, rc=rc)
+!    if (chkerr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return


Would it make sense to go ahead and remove these commented-out lines, along with the two comment lines above?

billsacks · 2022-12-07T15:53:05Z

+!    call driver_pio_component_init(driver, size(comps), rc)
+!    if (chkerr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return


Would it make sense to go ahead and remove these commented-out lines, along with the two comment lines above?

billsacks · 2022-12-07T15:54:57Z

+    call NUOPC_CompAttributeGet(ensemble_driver, name="glc_avg_period", value=glc_avg_period, rc=rc)
+    if (ChkErr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return
+    read(cvalue,*) glc_avg_period


It looks like you don't use glc_avg_period, so you could remove these lines. (I see you just moved this from below, so this is a pre-existing thing.)

billsacks · 2022-12-07T21:48:21Z

+          endif

-             call NUOPC_CompAttributeGet(gcomp(i), name="pio_typename", value=cval, rc=rc)
+          call NUOPC_CompAttributeGet(gcomp(i), name="pio_async_interface", value=cval, rc=rc)


At a glance, it looks like this block of code from here to line 354 duplicates the above block of code.

thanks for spotting that.

billsacks

Okay, this looks great now. I'm happy with how you handled the asyncio settings in buildnml. Thanks!

DeniseWorthen · 2022-12-12T16:16:11Z

-  private InitializeIPDv03p3 ! realize connected Fields with transfer action "provide"
-  private InitializeIPDv03p4 ! optionally modify the decomp/distr of transferred Grid/Mesh
-  private InitializeIPDv03p5 ! realize all Fields with transfer action "accept"
+  private AdvertiseFields ! advertise fields


Thanks for these.

DeniseWorthen

All UWM test pass.

jedwards4b · 2023-01-26T14:28:51Z

Retested prealpha against alpha12b

 ./cs.status.20230125_114302_bxq3t5 -f | grep -v NLCOMP | grep -v BFAIL
20230125_114302_bxq3t5: 87 tests
    FAIL DAE_N2_D_Lh12_Vmct.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm50BgcCrop.cheyenne_intel.clm-DA_multidrv TPUTCOMP Error: TPUTCOMP: Computation time increase > 25% from baseline
    FAIL ERP_D_Ln9_Vnuopc.C48_C48_mg17.QPC6.cheyenne_intel.cam-outfrq9s MODEL_BUILD time=245
    FAIL ERP_Ld3_Vnuopc.f09_f09_mg17.FCfireHIST.cheyenne_intel.cam-outfrq1d BASELINE cesm2_3_alpha12b: DIFF
    FAIL IRT_C3_Ld7.f19_g17.BHIST.cheyenne_intel.allactive-defaultio RUN time=7222
    PEND IRT_C3_Ld7.f19_g17.BHIST.cheyenne_intel.allactive-defaultio COMPARE_base_restart
    FAIL MCC.f19_g17.B1850.cheyenne_intel.allactive-defaultiomi RUN time=7231
    PEND MCC.f19_g17.B1850.cheyenne_intel.allactive-defaultiomi COMPARE_base_single_instance
    FAIL MCC_Ld5.f19_g17.B1850G.cheyenne_intel.allactive-cism-test_coupling RUN time=5427
    PEND MCC_Ld5.f19_g17.B1850G.cheyenne_intel.allactive-cism-test_coupling COMPARE_base_single_instance
    FAIL SMS_D_Ld1_PS.f09_g17.I1850Clm50BgcSpinup.cheyenne_intel.clm-cplhist RUN time=46
    FAIL SMS_D_Ln9_Vnuopc_P720x1.ne0CONUSne30x8_ne0CONUSne30x8_mt12.FCnudged.cheyenne_intel.cam-outfrq9s RUN time=1216
    FAIL SMS_Ld1_P144_D.T62_g17.C.cheyenne_intel.pop-144blocks_320x384_spacecurve RUN time=43244
    FAIL SMS_Ld2_P80_D.T62_g37.C1850ECO.cheyenne_intel.pop-ecosys_81blocks_100x116_spacecurve RUN time=43257

@fischer-ncar these all look like failures in alpha12b - can I go ahead and merge?

fischer-ncar · 2023-01-26T16:21:06Z

Yes, those are expected failures. You can go ahead and merge.

update 1850 and HIST compset names

enable asyncio using pio

243ffdb

jedwards4b requested a review from billsacks December 6, 2022 22:58

jedwards4b self-assigned this Dec 6, 2022

fix bug in setting log unit

3b2c4c5

billsacks requested changes Dec 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

jedwards4b added 4 commits December 8, 2022 07:56

review actions

195a5e4

fix some logging issues

b58cd0c

add some logic for asyncio settings

54c6bc3

remove whitespace

eaffa8d

jedwards4b requested review from DeniseWorthen, billsacks and uturuncoglu December 9, 2022 20:59

add another comment

9c034d9

billsacks approved these changes Dec 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

DeniseWorthen reviewed Dec 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

DeniseWorthen approved these changes Dec 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

uturuncoglu approved these changes Dec 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

jedwards4b added 13 commits December 13, 2022 10:27

some tests and bug fixes

85946ae

more cleanup and refactoring

861b0fd

set wallclock time for tests

de5592e

fix typo

9ca6451

add asyncio tests to prealpha

b1a7c69

get the tests working

67b42d5

more mods for asyncio testing

884fdf5

working now for B case

65c5a4e

more cleanup

be2d502

merge to master

eb44e55

add update_workflow pr

49e3034

fix naming of logs in multi-instance cases

c094c34

Merge branch 'main' into pio_asyncio_in_cmeps

d331baa

fix issues in merge

c2f8792

jedwards4b requested review from fischer-ncar January 26, 2023 14:29

jedwards4b merged commit efa1e47 into ESCOMP:main Jan 26, 2023

jedwards4b deleted the pio_asyncio_in_cmeps branch January 26, 2023 16:22

korsbakken pushed a commit to korsbakken/CMEPS that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2025

Merge pull request ESCOMP#325 from jedwards4b/update_compset_names

3f37963

update 1850 and HIST compset names

		! call driver_pio_init(driver, rc=rc)
		! if (chkerr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return

		! call driver_pio_component_init(driver, size(comps), rc)
		! if (chkerr(rc,__LINE__,u_FILE_u)) return

Conversation

jedwards4b commented Dec 6, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description of changes

Specific notes

Testing performed

Hashes used for testing:

Uh oh!

billsacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

billsacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DeniseWorthen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jedwards4b commented Jan 26, 2023

Uh oh!

fischer-ncar commented Jan 26, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

jedwards4b commented Dec 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading