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

Improve MessageLogger Context Handling for ProcessBlock Transitions #34506

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 16, 2021

Conversation

wddgit
Copy link
Contributor

@wddgit wddgit commented Jul 15, 2021

PR description:

Affects only MessageLogger context strings during ProcessBlock transitions.

Change the MessageLogger code so that it handles the ProcessBlock case in a manner as close as possible to the way it is handled for Runs. Before this it was more similar to the way beginJob was handled.

The main practical difference is that this can now properly deal with the case where a module ProcessBlock function goes into a wait that could allow other TBB tasks to run and another module runs its ProcessBlock transition before execution goes back to the original module and we want the context to be reset again for the original module. This does not currently happen anywhere, but it is possible. Logically the code is also cleaner and easier to understand if it is the same as in the Run case.

PR validation:

Relies on existing tests. One unit test is updated because of a minor change to make the context string more similar to that used for Runs.

Affects only MessageLogger context strings.
Handle the case where ProcessBlock transitions go
into a nonblocking wait and TBB runs another module
on the same thread. Handles this context the same as
for Run transitions.
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34506/23995

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @wddgit (W. David Dagenhart) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • FWCore/MessageService (core)

@makortel, @smuzaffar, @cmsbuild, @Dr15Jones can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @perrotta you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@wddgit
Copy link
Contributor Author

wddgit commented Jul 15, 2021

please test

(note this is based on the master branch 3 commits ahead of the last IB, hopefully that doesn't cause problems, but if it does I will rerun the tests tomorrow.)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5ebeac/16862/summary.html
COMMIT: 5a777f0
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-15-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34506/16862/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5ebeac/16862/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5ebeac/16862/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2786302
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2786273
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 37 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 160 log files, 37 edm output root files, 38 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

+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 now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @perrotta (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 16, 2021

+1

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

4 participants