[10.0.x] remove memory leak in PVValidation and fix ini file #21428
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages: Alignment/OfflineValidation @ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@mmusich sorry, I overlooked the example ini file |
|
@ghellwig, no problem, I don't mind (as long as it works out of the box :) ) |
|
why cloning in first place? |
|
@VinInn, admittedly no good reason - just bad copy paste of other code from my side... fixing |
cmsbuild
added
code-checks-pending
tests-pending
and removed
code-checks-approved
tests-started
labels
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
mmusich
changed the title
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline: Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
alca-approved
fully-signed
and removed
alca-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
| @@ -186,6 +186,8 @@ PrimaryVertexValidation::~PrimaryVertexValidation() | |||
| { | |||
| // do anything here that needs to be done at desctruction time | |||
| // (e.g. close files, deallocate resources etc.) | |||
| if (theTrackFilter_) delete theTrackFilter_; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For future reference, it would be much better to change theTrackFilter_ and theTrackClusterizer_ to be std::unique_ptr rather than doing explicit deletes. Also, there is no need to test for nullptr before calling delete since, internally, delete does the same check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @Dr15Jones, thanks for the comment. I'll keep that in mind for the next iteration.
As I got inspiration from,
cmssw/RecoVertex/PrimaryVertexProducer/src/PrimaryVertexProducerAlgorithm.cc
Lines 106 to 107 in efba733
I think same comment applies also there: maybe worth opening an issue?
The purpose of this PR is to remove the large memory leak introduced in c3db41b.
As the cloned recHit was not destroyed after being used, running over a large sample of data was resulting in jobs killed because of memory exhaustion.
For comparison here is the RSS performance measured by running over 10k events of run 305967 of
/HLTPhysics/Run2017F-TkAlMinBias-PromptReco-v1/ALCARECOI profit of this PR also to clean-up two other (relatively minor) memory leaks as well as to change the nomenclature in the example ini file, which is now broken due to fb07740.