Verniered Calipers performance 25 core

[mo-marqh]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Mike Hobson (@mike-hobson)
Code Reviewer: Ed Hone (@EdHone)

This change re-introduces lfric_core calipers that were used for the 2025 performance analysis.

it is a stand alone change.

Code Quality Checklist

(Some checks are automatically carried out via the CI pipeline)

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's
  style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the
  readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings

Testing

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Core rose-stem suite
• If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite
  using this branch
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and
  acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system
  tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource
  and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the
  developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource
  and complete in a matter of minutes)

group=all tests run

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_core - calipersKPI25-core/run1

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	calipersKPI25-core/run1
Suite User	mark.hedley
Workflow Start	2026-01-21T11:44:02
Groups Run	all

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
lfric_core	mo-marqh/lfric_core@calipersKPI25-core	False
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@2025.12.1	True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 372

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable
  performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance
  of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise,
  Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the
  Simulation Systems AI policy
  (including attribution labels)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and
  confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

• If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel
  interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please
  contact the
  tooscollabdevteam@metoffice.gov.uk

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[mo-marqh]

this is now ready for Sci/Tech review

[Matthew Hambley (MatthewHambley)]

Presumed code owner review: There's nothing in my bailiwick here.

[Mike Hobson (mike-hobson)]

I have no objection to adding these calipers, but I'd like to know why this particular (slightly random) set of calipers are being permanently added to trunk? If they are just for a particular piece of work, rather than for more general use, they should probably be used from within a branch.

If they are for more general use, I would be happy for them to go on.

[mo-marqh]

I have no objection to adding these calipers, but I'd like to know why this particular (slightly random) set of calipers are being permanently added to trunk? If they are just for a particular piece of work, rather than for more general use, they should probably be used from within a branch.

If they are for more general use, I would be happy for them to go on.

thank you Mike

This is a small set of calipers that were identified during the performance analysis work of Nov/Dec 25 as blind spots with respect to a few choice places within the LFRic core code.
There's a related PR in preparation for LFRic apps that has a larger number of additions and changes.
(These aren't linked, they don't need to be, but the goal is for them to complement.)

The main reason that these are proposed to be added to main are so that they can form part of an intended regular performance monitoring analysis, that will use main at set time intervals to monitor how ranges of commits impact performance metrics.

We intend for the set of measures to be consistent across tests and suites to facilitate these comparisons.
So, this PR is plugging some gaps, which is perhaps why this particular set of choices seem slightly random.
hth, m

[Mike Hobson (mike-hobson)]

Thanks for those comments - and that sounds fine. I'm now happy for this to pass Sci/Tech review.

[Ed Hone (EdHone)]

No issues with the code or implementation at all - well formatted change which enables more useful profiling data collection for I/O. Approved