Backport for OuterTrackingMonitorTrackingParticle

[emacdonald16]

PR description:

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

PR validation:

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

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:

Original PR: #27090

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @emacdonald16 for CMSSW_10_6_X.

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/759/console Started: 2019/06/05 10:48

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 203187a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-57a3f9/759/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-57a3f9/759/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3211772
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3211404
• 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]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_6_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_0_X is complete. 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 is this backport needed because of the UL processing validation?

[emacdonald16]

@fabiocos What is the UL processing validation? I thought a backport would be necessary since it was first reported in #26915 that the producer ran very slow at high PU. @jfernan2 also voted for the backport in the original PR, #27090.

[fabiocos]

+1