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

Merge 3.5.4 to dev #2494

Merged
merged 30 commits into from
Nov 1, 2024
Merged

Merge 3.5.4 to dev #2494

merged 30 commits into from
Nov 1, 2024

Conversation

andrew-platt
Copy link
Collaborator

Ready to merge

Feature or improvement description
Several improvements from release 3.5.4 have not been merged into dev yet

Related issue, if one exists
Release 3.5.4: https://github.com/OpenFAST/openfast/releases/tag/v3.5.4

Impacted areas of the software
Only areas impacted by 3.5.4

Additional supporting information
3.5.4 included a few bugfixes that conflict with the current dev branch. So we are using the intermediary branch of m/3.5.4_to_dev to sort out any differences.

Test results, if applicable
There may be very small changes in the BeamDyn tests due to small numerical changes. This may appear in the linearization tests.

andrew-platt and others added 30 commits July 19, 2024 11:02
We were having problems with the `!OMP` directives around high resolution file reading in AWAE.f90. Since the file reading starts with a call to `GetNewUnit` before starting the opening, parallel calls to `GetNewUnit` could result in the same unit number handed out to two processes.  The first process would open the file and start reading, but then the second process would open a different file with the same unit number causing read errors for both processes as they attempted to read the same file at the same time.

Adding `$OMP critical` around the `GetNewUnit` and following `OpenFile...` calls so that in theory these cannot be done in parallel.

Co-authored-by: Derek Slaughter <deslaughter@gmail.com>
Add !$ OMP critical around file opening for VTK
📝 Fixed typo in docs/source/install/index.rst
The old line length was 1024 characters. Increased this to 8192 -- May be need in HD if a large number of floating bodies are specified
FileInfoType: increase line length allowed
…s when more than 9 potential-flow bodies are present
HD bug fix: prevent array index out-of-bound error in HDOut_MapOutputs when more than 9 potential-flow bodies are present
…on of numbers less than 5e-5"

This reverts commit f93ef05.
BeamDyn performance improvements
We have been having issues with stack overflows in FAST.Farm when large
wind grids were passed to AWAE.  This was eventually tracked down to
line 1078 in AWAE.f90 which reads:
`m%u_IfW_Low%PositionXYZ = p%Grid_low`
The `p%Grid_low` is of unknown size at compile time, but can be
extremely large (3x160000 or more).  This copy involves a temporary
array and would normally be handled on the stack, but could result in
an overflow for some models.  By setting the `/heap-arrays:1000` any
operation resulting in a temporary array of unknown array size at
compile time will use the heap for the temprary array, and as will any
array known at compile time to be larger than 1000 kB.

Testing shows that this fixes issue #2053, and will likely also solve #843 and #2241

See
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/fortran-compiler/developer-guide-reference/2024-2/heap-arrays.html
for reference.
Fix for some stack overflow issues with FAST.Farm
Thanks to @pablo-benito for noticing the typo
The branch `m/3.5.4_to_dev` is an intermediate branch for merging changes from 3.5.4 into dev (there are some conflicts that can't be resolved nicely otherwise)
@andrew-platt andrew-platt added this to the v4.0.0 milestone Nov 1, 2024
@andrew-platt andrew-platt self-assigned this Nov 1, 2024
@andrew-platt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Matching PR on r-test: OpenFAST/r-test#139

@andrew-platt andrew-platt merged commit b5630b4 into dev Nov 1, 2024
60 of 63 checks passed
@andrew-platt andrew-platt deleted the m/3.5.4_to_dev branch November 1, 2024 20:05
andrew-platt added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2024
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.

4 participants