Pixel Seeding - CA - small timing improvements #16848
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @felicepantaleo (Felice Pantaleo) for CMSSW_9_0_X. It involves the following packages: RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
|
@cmsbuild , please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready The workflows 1003.0, 1001.0, 1000.0, 140.53, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons |
|
@felicepantaleo: Please post your timing measurements for the improvement this PR provides. |
|
@cvuosalo |
|
On 12/6/16 4:18 AM, Felice Pantaleo wrote:
@cvuosalo <https://github.com/cvuosalo>
Seeding time decreases by ~5%
https://fpantale.web.cern.ch/fpantale/offline_tuning/tracking_compare_pr_std_sqrt/plots_timing.html
These are times for a development version with CA, right? (not something
from the standard workflows that shouldn't be changed by this PR).
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16848 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbtFphe2ekuQrqQ4hmuS6Ga8_nuqcks5rFVKrgaJpZM4LDjoJ>.
|
|
@slava77 yes, this is a development version where seeding is using CA in every offline pixel-only iteration |
|
+1 Typo fixing and code clean-up in Pixel Seeding. There should be no change in monitored quantities, just a small improvement in timing. The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-12-03-1100 show no significant differences, as expected. |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
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 |
|
+1 |
@VinInn @rovere @makortel
In the compatibility check between two cells, we were using fabs and sqrt instead of their std:: counterparts.
There was also a typo which is now corrected.
Physics is not affected, only timing improves.