Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) #16669

20034.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D1_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D1+RecoFullGlobal_2023D1+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D1
21234.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D4_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D4+RecoFullGlobal_2023D4+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D4
23234.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D5_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D5+RecoFullGlobal_2023D5+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D5

dmitrijus · 2016-11-25T13:28:17Z

+1

slava77 · 2016-11-25T18:06:07Z

+1

for #16669 5029b88

code changes are as intended
jenkins tests pass and comparisons show differences in 2023 wflows in muon isolation and calorimeter quantities (expected)

See more notes on technical performance in #16670 (comment)

Martin-Grunewald · 2016-11-26T10:16:03Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2016-11-26T10:16:21Z

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

slava77 · 2016-11-28T13:24:58Z

@davidlange6
are there any issues with this PR or is it just to early to expect it to be merged?

davidlange6 · 2016-11-28T16:45:04Z

HLTrigger/Configuration/python/customizeHLTforCMSSW.py

@@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ def customiseFor14833(process):
                producer.includeME0 = cms.bool(False)
    return process

+def customiseFor16670(process):


Hi @calabria @slava77 -does not a fillDescriptions implementation avoid this function completely? In any case, when will this get propagated to the menu?

we plan to migrate the HLT menu to CMSSW 9.0.x once pre1 is out.

any reason a fillDescription does not work here? (with the nice feature of being desirable for the long term)

it's a typical problem of no easy fix.
There is not fillDescriptions for this tool.

It's an ESProducer, it currently gets a tool to be configured from the plugin factory during ::produce call, the needed parameter is a sub-tool of the tool to be configured.
So, some significant development and some refactoring might be necessary.

@Dr15Jones do we have an example of what to do in this case?

davidlange6 · 2016-11-29T14:18:41Z

I don’t follow the complexity (yet) It looks like ESSources support fillDescriptions. Is the the HLT config not a standalone ESSource as it is in TrackingTools/TrackAssociator/python/DetIdAssociatorESProducer_cff.py - but ok, I haven’t tried this myself... in fact, is this parameter in the menu at all? I don’t really see it aside from here https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/53327033fb356b2a704464439ce79fa47a9d1678/HLTrigger/HLTanalyzers/python/HLT_ES_cff.py is this somehow derived from online menus or editable in the release (unedited since <62x)

…

On Nov 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote: @slava77 commented on this pull request. In HLTrigger/Configuration/python/customizeHLTforCMSSW.py: > @@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ def customiseFor14833(process): producer.includeME0 = cms.bool(False) return process +def customiseFor16670(process): it's a typical problem of no easy fix. There is not fillDescriptions for this tool. It's an ESProducer, it currently gets a tool to be configured from the plugin factory during ::produce call, the needed parameter is a sub-tool of the tool to be configured. So, some significant development and some refactoring might be necessary. @Dr15Jones do we have an example of what to do in this case? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Martin-Grunewald · 2016-11-29T14:32:27Z

At HLT we have currently exactly 5 parameters for any DetIdAssociatorESProducer instance
in the menu, even

process.muonDetIdAssociator = cms.ESProducer( "DetIdAssociatorESProducer",
  ComponentName = cms.string( "MuonDetIdAssociator" ),
  etaBinSize = cms.double( 0.125 ),
  nEta = cms.int32( 48 ),
  nPhi = cms.int32( 48 ),
  includeBadChambers = cms.bool( False )
)

So any missing parameters must either already be inserted by fillDescriptions, or via existsAs treated in the code, or conditionally on the value of ComponentName.

Dr15Jones · 2016-11-29T14:43:08Z

@slava77 to my knowledge, we've never come up with a satisfactory mechanism of dealing with configuration parameters from internal plugins of modules.

fwyzard · 2016-11-29T14:54:49Z

Indeed.

Would it make sense to add a static fillDescriptions-like method to the classes that make use of the plugin system ?

slava77 · 2016-11-29T15:56:43Z

@davidlange6
would existsAs solution be acceptable to you?
(it was suggested by @Martin-Grunewald )
This is simple enough that I can see it implemented quickly.

fwyzard · 2016-11-29T16:13:30Z

I'd rather we finally have a general way of handling plugins, say in a month or so, and live with a python customisation in the meantime.

davidlange6 · 2016-11-29T16:52:40Z

after the discussion in the ORP, we just decided to keep this PR as it is..

…

On Nov 29, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote: @davidlange6 would existsAs solution be acceptable to you? (it was suggested by @Martin-Grunewald ) This is simple enough that I can see it implemented quickly. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

davidlange6 · 2016-11-29T16:59:03Z

+1

Dr15Jones · 2016-11-30T16:21:39Z

@fwyzard I don't have any plans for a 'general way' of handling plugins. The difficulty is the validator object created in the fillDescriptions method of the module would have to know how to load the plugin itself (talking to a different interface connected to the plugin's fillDescription rather than the regular plugin interface) and then know what parameters from the module must be passed to the plugin.

The extremely wide diversity of how plugins are configured (on top of the pervasiveness of plugins) makes a general solution extremely difficult.

Cesare Calabria added 3 commits November 17, 2016 11:07

reduced muon validation

2ad1661

fix

0a1046e

fix

24d542b

calabria changed the title ~~Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios~~ Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_9_0_X milestone Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-pending dqm-pending orp-pending pending-signatures labels Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added the tests-pending label Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Nov 17, 2016

fix timing issue

e88f943

cmsbuild added simulation-pending tests-pending and removed tests-started labels Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending tests-started labels Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild added simulation-approved and removed simulation-pending labels Nov 25, 2016

cmsbuild added dqm-approved and removed dqm-pending labels Nov 25, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Nov 25, 2016

slava77 mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2016

Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (81X) #16670

Merged

cmsbuild added fully-signed hlt-approved and removed hlt-pending pending-signatures labels Nov 26, 2016

davidlange6 reviewed Nov 28, 2016

View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Nov 29, 2016

cmsbuild merged commit 916211f into cms-sw:CMSSW_9_0_X Nov 29, 2016

kpedro88 mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2016

Reduce CPU time in MuonAssociatorByHitsHelper #16941

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) #16669

Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) #16669

calabria commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

kpedro88 commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

civanch commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 •

edited by smuzaffar

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

dmitrijus commented Nov 25, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 25, 2016

Martin-Grunewald commented Nov 26, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 26, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 28, 2016

davidlange6 Nov 28, 2016

fwyzard Nov 28, 2016

davidlange6 Nov 29, 2016

slava77 Nov 29, 2016

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

Martin-Grunewald commented Nov 29, 2016 •

edited

Dr15Jones commented Nov 29, 2016

fwyzard commented Nov 29, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 29, 2016

fwyzard commented Nov 29, 2016

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016

Dr15Jones commented Nov 30, 2016

Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) #16669

Reduced muon validation for PhaseII Upgrade high PU scenarios (90X) #16669

Conversation

calabria commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

kpedro88 commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

civanch commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 • edited

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 • edited by smuzaffar

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016

dmitrijus commented Nov 25, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 25, 2016

Martin-Grunewald commented Nov 26, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 26, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 28, 2016

davidlange6 Nov 28, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fwyzard Nov 28, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidlange6 Nov 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 Nov 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

Martin-Grunewald commented Nov 29, 2016 • edited

Dr15Jones commented Nov 29, 2016

fwyzard commented Nov 29, 2016

slava77 commented Nov 29, 2016

fwyzard commented Nov 29, 2016

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

davidlange6 commented Nov 29, 2016

Dr15Jones commented Nov 30, 2016

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Nov 17, 2016 •

edited by smuzaffar

Martin-Grunewald commented Nov 29, 2016 •

edited