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

reMiniAOD relval workflows for heavy ions #30354

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Jun 30, 2020

Conversation

mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@mandrenguyen mandrenguyen commented Jun 24, 2020

Adds a new workflows 140.5611 and 158.01, to test reMiniAOD in data and MC, respectively.
Requested in #30349

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30354/16376

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/PyReleaseValidation
RecoTauTag/Configuration

@perrotta, @pgunnell, @chayanit, @wajidalikhan, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @fabiocos, @slomeo this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

please test workflow 159.11

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 24, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Test Parameters:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 784c934
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6456f/7308/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-23-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@@ -704,6 +704,8 @@ def identitySim(wf):
# INPUT command for reminiAOD wfs on UL-like relval inputs
steps['TTbar_13_reminiaod2016UL_preVFP_INPUT']={'INPUT':InputInfo(dataSet='/RelValTTbar_13UP16/CMSSW_10_6_12-PU25ns_106X_mcRun2_asymptotic_preVFP_v8_hltul16_preVFP-v1/AODSIM',label='rmaod',location='STD')}
steps['TTbar_13_reminiaod2016UL_postVFP_INPUT']={'INPUT':InputInfo(dataSet='/RelValTTbar_13UP16/CMSSW_10_6_12-PU25ns_106X_mcRun2_asymptotic_v13_hltul16_postVFP-v1/AODSIM',label='rmaod',location='STD')}
# INPUT command for reminiAOD wfs on PbPb relval inputs
steps['HydjetQ_reminiaodPbPb2021_INPUT']={'INPUT':InputInfo(dataSet='/RelValHydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2021_ppReco/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre1-PU_111X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_HI_v5-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO',label='rmaod',location='STD')}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My goal from #30349 was to provide a reminiAOD setup using the target input dataset, which in this case would be from 10_3_X.
This one is apparently from 11_2_0, which makes this a bit impractical for the needs of reminiAOD

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, I assumed we would just do then when backporting to 10_6_X. But ok, we can run on a 10_3 input in the master. Will just have to fix the puppi issue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can input instead the dataset: /RelValHydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018_ppReco/CMSSW_10_3_3-PU_103X_upgrade2018_realistic_HI_v11-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO
However, it's only at T1_US_FNAL_Disk.
What does one enter in the function InputInfo, for the argument 'location' instead of 'STD'?
@chayanit maybe you can give me a pointer here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is there an AOD file instead, to stay as close as possible to the (re)miniAOD scope?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, it seems we are still writing RECOSIM in all the relval workflows.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6456f/7308/summary.html

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

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-e6456f/159.11_HydjetQ_reminiaodPbPb2021_INPUT+HydjetQ_reminiaodPbPb2021_INPUT+REMINIAODHI2021PPRECO+HARVESTHI2021PPRECOMINIAOD

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2778811
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2778757
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
  • Checked 152 log files, 16 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jun 24, 2020

Adds a new MC workflow, 159.11, to test reMiniAOD in MC.

I understood that the (re)miniAOD will apply also to data.
Please add a workflow/setup for data as well.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Tested with other pull request(s) #30237
Test Parameters:

  • MATRIX_EXTRAS = 140.5611

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Tested with other pull request(s) #30255
Test Parameters:

  • MATRIX_EXTRAS = 140.5611

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Tested with other pull request(s) #30313
Test Parameters:

  • MATRIX_EXTRAS = 140.5611

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 30, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Tested with other pull request(s) #30253
Test Parameters:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: e89a9ce
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ec29ab/7531/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-30-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@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-ec29ab/7531/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2778915
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2778864
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
  • Checked 152 log files, 16 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

merge

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 4d72399 into cms-sw:master Jun 30, 2020
@santocch
Copy link

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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 be automatically merged.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jul 24, 2020

The heavier wf 140.5611 takes 4.4 s/event on my nominal 10HS06 node, compared to 2.1 s/ev in wf 136.88811 (reminiAOD of UL 2018 data).

Most of the heavy modules with dubious purpose for HI are PUPPI-related (taking >=20ms cases):

227.15 ms/ev patMETsPuppi
226.99 ms/ev patPFMetPuppi
507.88 ms/ev pfImpactParameterTagInfosPuppi
26.96 ms/ev packedCandidateTrackValidatorLostTracks
142.41 ms/ev pfSecondaryVertexTagInfosPuppi
42.28 ms/ev pfCombinedMVAV2BJetTagsPuppi
31.83 ms/ev pfCombinedCvsBJetTagsPuppi
39.85 ms/ev pfCombinedCvsLJetTagsPuppi
772.81 ms/ev puppi
771.44 ms/ev puppiNoLep
63.76 ms/ev ak4PFJetsPuppi

these add up to 2.85 s/ev and I suppose the next step will be to either crank up the thresholds or remove them from the sequences.

@mandrenguyen
this was mentioned in the RECO meeting earlier today

@mandrenguyen mandrenguyen deleted the hiReMiniAODRelValWF branch October 8, 2020 08:06
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

9 participants