Modified OuterTrackerMonitorTrackingParticles to run much faster

[emacdonald16]

PR description:

Heavily modified nLayers variable; runs much faster now (~2.5 s/evt at 200PU, compared to ~400)
resolves #26932

PR validation:

Compared output file before and after changes, and they were identical. Only difference is in run time.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27090/10181

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @emacdonald16 for master.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/SiOuterTrackerV

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[jfernan2]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/738/console Started: 2019/06/04 12:59

[jfernan2]

@emacdonald16 does this PR need a backport?

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 9c788d7
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a22496/738/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[emacdonald16]

@jfernan2 A backport would probably be a very good idea, if it's the main offender for a typical runTheMatrix workflow with PU, at least for CMSSW_10_6_X

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a22496/738/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3210222
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 38
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3209850
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[jfernan2]

@jfernan2 A backport would probably be a very good idea, if it's the main offender for a typical runTheMatrix workflow with PU, at least for CMSSW_10_6_X

I would definitely vote for it, please

[jfernan2]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[fabiocos]

@emacdonald16 @jfernan2 are the differences observed in the DQM comparisons understood and expected? The descriptions says there should be none...

[jfernan2]

@fabiocos most of the DQM differences are due to fine tuning of the Bin by Bin tool (WIP to fully black list the EventInfo checks), with the exception of different number of events processed for 13 MEs in Phase2 workflows, e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/yy23luoo

@emacdonald16 can you comment on those? Thanks

[emacdonald16]

@fabiocos @jfernan2 The differences are understood. I modified a few other things in the code as well, that have no effect when the L1 TTTracks are included (which isn't the case in central CMSSW, only when run privately), but allow you to now see the denominator of the efficiency plots that are made from the tracking particles if the TTTracks are not included.

[fabiocos]

+1