Prepartitioning with threading race condition fix

[Matthew Walker (mattatmet)]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: mo-marqh
Code Reviewer: Benjamin Went (@MetBenjaminWent)

This PR is to address a race condition in the threading employed by the partitioning section of the cubedsphere_mesh_generator code. This was originally found using offline partitioning in the apps PR #688 (linked to this one) where a seg fault was occurring for really high partition numbers and a custom mesh decomposition task. I believe that the linked list pointer in the global_mesh_map_collection code was being overwritten by competing threads and that by separating the declaration and nullification of the pointer, the save attribute is no longer being applied, making the loop variable local to each thread calling the object.

• linked Offline partitioning of mesh in weekly tests lfric_apps#688

Code Quality Checklist

• 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
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

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)

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_core - partitioned_null_pointer_dev_tests/run1

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	[partitioned_null_pointer_dev_tests/run1](https://cylchub/services/cylc-review/cycles/matthew.walker/? suite=partitioned_null_pointer_dev_tests%2Frun1)
Suite User	matthew.walker
Workflow Start	2026-08-18T09:47:17
Groups Run	developer

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
lfric_core	mattatmet/lfric_core@offline_partition	False
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@cab3315	True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 431

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 TCD Team

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]

A change is necessary to fix the observed edge case bug.
This is a neat and well contained alternative that meets requirements

[mo-marqh]

ready for code review Benjamin Went (@MetBenjaminWent)

[Benjamin Went (MetBenjaminWent)]

Should this instead be, (for consistency)? : loop => null()

[Benjamin Went (MetBenjaminWent)]

Question for CO too Ricky Wong (@mo-rickywong)

[Matthew Walker (mattatmet)]

Thanks Benjamin Went (@MetBenjaminWent), agreed, have pushed this change now.

[Ricky Wong (mo-rickywong)]

No issue with this, It's actually recommended practice which we try to remove null() assignments on the declaration statement. This is obviously legacy code that hasn't been revisited.