{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/938","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/938/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/938/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/938/events","html_url":"https://github.com/ESMCI/cime/issues/938","id":196478408,"number":938,"title":"Can we get more detailed timing information back in CESM?","user":{"login":"billsacks","id":6266741,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6266741?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks","html_url":"https://github.com/billsacks","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/billsacks/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-12-19T17:47:46Z","updated_at":"2016-12-19T17:52:00Z","closed_at":null,"body":"In recent versions of cime, the default timing information is very coarse-grained, and thus not really useful for looking at timings of individual pieces of code. At a recent CSEG meeting @jedwards4b said he thought that there might be more timing information by default in a CESM case, but as far as I can tell that isn't true. Can this be made true - i.e., we go back to having the default, more detailed timing information in CESM? Or are there reasons why this is bad (performance, etc.)?\r\n\r\n e.g., from this test from master: `SMS.f45_g37.A.yellowstone_intel` - all we get is now:\r\n\r\n```\r\nname                  processes  threads        count      walltotal   wallmax (proc   thrd  )   wallmin (proc   thrd  )\r\n\"CPL:INIT\"                   15       15 3.000000e+01   3.868827e+02    25.798 (     6      0)    25.786 (     0      0)\r\n\"CPL:RUN_LOOP_BSTART\"        15       15 1.500000e+01   3.476910e-03     0.000 (    13      0)     0.000 (     7      0)\r\n\"CPL:RUN_LOOP\"               15       15 3.600000e+03   2.157233e+02    22.350 (     1      0)    10.397 (     5      0)\r\n\"CPL:CLOCK_ADVANCE\"          15       15 3.600000e+03   5.310138e-01     0.038 (     4      0)     0.031 (     5      0)\r\n\"CPL:RUN\"                    15       15 3.966000e+04   2.044285e+02    21.629 (     1      0)     9.563 (    11      0)\r\n\"CPL:COMM\"                   15       15 1.446000e+04   1.597295e+00     0.196 (    11      0)     0.059 (     0      0)\r\n\"CPL:ICE_RUN\"                15       15 3.600000e+03   3.956535e+00     0.289 (     1      0)     0.230 (    14      0)\r\n\"CPL:ROF_RUN\"                15       15 3.600000e+03   2.464620e+00     0.170 (     0      0)     0.162 (    12      0)\r\n\"CPL:ATM_RUN\"                15       15 3.600000e+03   2.480473e+00     0.190 (     0      0)     0.159 (     4      0)\r\n\"CPL:TPROF_WRITE\"            15       15 3.600000e+03   4.331141e-04     0.000 (     1      0)     0.000 (     8      0)\r\n\"CPL:C2O_INITWAIT\"           15       15 6.000000e+01   6.367750e-03     0.001 (    10      0)     0.000 (     2      0)\r\n\"CPL:OCN_RUN\"                15       15 6.000000e+01   2.263431e-02     0.002 (     0      0)     0.001 (    14      0)\r\n\"CPL:RUN_LOOP_BSTOP\"         15       15 1.500000e+01   1.195260e+02    11.952 (     3      0)     0.000 (     1      0)\r\n\"CPL:FINAL\"                  15       15 1.500000e+01   3.780562e-02     0.003 (    10      0)     0.003 (     3      0)\r\n\"final:t_prf\"                 0        0 0.000000e+00   0.000000e+00     0.000 (     0      0)     0.000 (     0      0)\r\n```\r\n\r\nAnd we only get that level of detail from an I case as well (I case tested with beta04 version of cime).\r\n\r\ncc @sherimickelson @jedwards4b "},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/comments/268030931","html_url":"https://github.com/ESMCI/cime/issues/938#issuecomment-268030931","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ESMCI/cime/issues/938","id":268030931,"user":{"login":"worleyph","id":7872788,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7872788?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph","html_url":"https://github.com/worleyph","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/worleyph/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-12-19T17:52:00Z","updated_at":"2016-12-19T17:52:00Z","body":"The default DETAIL was set to zero. It should be at least 1, and I prefer 2. With the new prefix logic, it can go higher (to show off intialization cost details) without confusing intialization and run loop timers. I typically run with 8 these days (because initialization has become a problem on some systems, but that is just me)."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"worleyph"}}