Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove OOT photons from 2018 heavy-ion (AA) era #23371

Merged
merged 9 commits into from Jun 6, 2018

Conversation

mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

OOT photons are not needed for reconstruction of PbPb events.
This PR modifies the era "pp_on_AA_2018", which is intended for PbPb processing this year.
It was tested with wf 158.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mandrenguyen (Matthew Nguyen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoEcal/EgammaClusterProducers
RecoEgamma/EgammaIsolationAlgos
RecoEgamma/EgammaPhotonProducers
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecProducers
RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @Sam-Harper, @jainshilpi, @rovere, @argiro, @bachtis, @cbernet, @mariadalfonso, @lgray, @varuns23, @seemasharmafnal this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

)
cms.InputTag("interestingGedEgammaIsoESDetId"),
cms.InputTag("interestingOotEgammaIsoESDetId"),
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that the previous indentation of closing braces was more consistent before the changes made here

pp_on_AA_2018.toReplaceWith(reducedEcalRecHitsTask, _pp_on_AA_reducedEcalRecHitsTask)

_pp_on_AA_interestingDetIdsEB = cms.VInputTag(
cms.InputTag("interestingEcalDetIdEB"),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this and other better be rewritten in a way that there is no copy-paste of the existing vectors.
something along the lines

pp_on_AA_2018.toModify(reducedEcalRecHitsEB.interestingDetIdCollections, func = lambda list: list.remove(cms.InputTag("interestingEcalDetIdOOTPFEE")) ))

@@ -46,7 +46,8 @@

ReducedEGProducer::ReducedEGProducer(const edm::ParameterSet& config) :
photonT_(consumes<reco::PhotonCollection>(config.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("photons"))),
ootPhotonT_(consumes<reco::PhotonCollection>(config.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("ootPhotons"))),
doOotPhotons_(!config.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("ootPhotons").label().empty()),
ootPhotonT_(doOotPhotons_ ? consumes<reco::PhotonCollection>(config.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("ootPhotons")) : edm::EDGetTokenT<reco::PhotonCollection>()),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that this change is not necessary.
Simply test for a value of ootPhotonT_.isUnintialized() in places where this doOotPhotons_ was introduced

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

modifications that hide calls to produces<some OOT related type>(some oot related name) are missing. Please add.


pp_on_AA_2018.toModify(
reducedHcalRecHits,
interestingDetIds = _pp_on_AA_interestingDetIds
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it would be more practical to use toModify as in the other file without assuming what's in the original interestingDetIds.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented May 29, 2018

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 29, 2018

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28264/console Started: 2018/05/29 18:34

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23371/28264/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 31
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2902471
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2902279
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 190
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 30 files compared)
  • Checked 128 log files, 14 edm output root files, 31 DQM output files

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

Pull request #23371 was updated. @perrotta, @monttj, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @gpetruc, @arizzi can you please check and sign again.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jun 5, 2018

@cmsbuild please test workflow 158.0

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28484/console Started: 2018/06/05 15:16

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23371/28484/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/results/JR-comparison/PR-23371/158.0_HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018+HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018+DIGIHI2018PPRECO+RECOHI2018PPRECO+HARVESTHI2018PPRECO

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 31
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2902471
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2902280
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 190
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 30 files compared)
  • Checked 128 log files, 14 edm output root files, 31 DQM output files

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jun 5, 2018

+1

for #23371 56a39ea

  • code changes are in line with the PR description; the changes affect only Run2_2018_pp_on_AA era
  • jenkins tests pass
  • local tests on 200 events of wf 158.0 (using Run2_2018_pp_on_AA) show expected behavior: OOT-related modules are gone from the execution paths. Savings on this sample are rather minimal, adding up to about 30 ms/ev out of about 9 s/ev in reco modules total.

@mandrenguyen was the OOT a significant contributor in some of your tests? It seems to me that the strategy to file away small contributions from pp like this is not particularly practical.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Jun 6, 2018

+1

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Jun 6, 2018

merge

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 96f61ee into cms-sw:master Jun 6, 2018
@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@slava77 I tested the timing together with other customizations that are included in #23404, as well as in a forthcoming PR.
The full set I tested is listed here:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/CMS/HiEgamma2018/egamma_customisations.txt
I would have to dig up the total savings, which are not negligible.

We decided to split this into several PRs. Unfortunately, this one doesn't seem to be save much.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants