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

move pixelTopology.h from Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder to Geometry/CommonTopologies #36773

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 1, 2022

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented Jan 21, 2022

resolves #36302

PR description:

As suggested in #36302 (comment)

PR validation:

cmssw compiles

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

N/A

Note to reviewers:

  1. I chose Geometry/CommonTopologies among the ones indicated in Placement of phase1PixelTopology.h #36302 (comment), but could be any other. Please confirm it's OK.
  2. in the same folder Geometry/CommonTopologies there is also a PixelTopology.h file.

#ifndef Geometry_CommonTopologies_PixelTopology_H

To avoid confusions, this one could be named siPixelTopology.h or simplePixelTopology.h or something like that. Suggestions are welcome.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36773/27910

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • CUDADataFormats/Track (heterogeneous, reconstruction)
  • CUDADataFormats/TrackingRecHit (heterogeneous, reconstruction)
  • CalibTracker/SiPixelLorentzAngle (alca)
  • CondFormats/SiPixelObjects (db, alca)
  • Geometry/CommonTopologies (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder (geometry)
  • RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelClusterizer (reconstruction)
  • RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelRecHits (reconstruction)
  • RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets (reconstruction)

@malbouis, @civanch, @yuanchao, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @ggovi, @Dr15Jones, @clacaputo, @slava77, @jpata, @tvami, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@tvami, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @bsunanda, @OzAmram, @tocheng, @ferencek, @mtosi, @gpetruc, @mmusich, @dkotlins, @threus, @dgulhan, @seemasharmafnal, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Jan 21, 2022

@cmsbuild , please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#7575

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6b9f8/21909/summary.html
COMMIT: 97eff56
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-01-21-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36773/21909/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-e6b9f8/21909/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6b9f8/21909/git-merge-result

RelVals-INPUT

  • 4.764.76_ZMuSkim2012D+ZMuSkim2012D+HLTDSKIM2+RECODR1reHLT2+HARVESTDR1reHLT/step2_ZMuSkim2012D+ZMuSkim2012D+HLTDSKIM2+RECODR1reHLT2+HARVESTDR1reHLT.log

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 9 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 43
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3464860
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 10
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3464827
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 42 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 181 log files, 42 edm output root files, 43 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jan 24, 2022

enable gpu

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jan 25, 2022

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6b9f8/21980/summary.html
COMMIT: 97eff56
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-01-24-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: GPU
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36773/21980/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

GPU Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 19811
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1530
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 18281
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 3 files compared)
  • Checked 12 log files, 9 edm output root files, 4 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 43
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3449324
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3449302
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 42 files compared)
  • Checked 181 log files, 42 edm output root files, 43 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

clacaputo commented Jan 26, 2022

I don't have comments on the code, but I've just a curiosity about the GPU test.
I've noticed that there are a few differences in some reco quantities for WF 11634.506 that seem to be non-reproducible. Do you know what's causing this behaviour?

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Jan 26, 2022

+1

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jan 27, 2022

@clacaputo

I've noticed that there are a few differences in some reco quantities for WF 11634.506 that seem to be non-reproducible. Do you know what's causing this behaviour?

I think a certain degree of non-reproducibility has been known to affect the pixel-related GPU workflows since ever. In my understanding, part of it, (especially for the vertexing related quantities) stems for the algorithm itself. On the other hand there might be other sources, which are incidentally being explored e.g. in this PR (#36390).
Having said that, said non-reproducibility AFAIK has not been a showstopper for the reco sign-off for several past GPU-related PRs and I think in any case it should be discussed elsewhere than this purely technical change which is not expected to bring any further regression. Thank you.

@fwyzard
Copy link
Contributor

fwyzard commented Jan 27, 2022

Hi @clacaputo, yes, I can confirm @mmusich's answer: some level of non-reproducibility is intrinsic in the use of parallel algorithms, due to the non-associative nature of floating point operations (a + (b + c) is not guaranteed to be the same as (a + b) + c) and the fact that parallel algorithm perform such reduction operations in a non-deterministic order.

Of course, there can be non-reproducibility issues that are due to, or amplified by, underlying bugs - both in the new GPU-based algorithms and in the existing non-GPU ones - so if you spot anything suspicious in the code, please do let us know !

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mmusich , @fwyzard , thanks a lot for the explanation. I was just curious about the behaviour that I've seen in the GPU WF and you fulfilled my curiosity.

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

+reconstruction

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Feb 1, 2022

ping @cms-sw/heterogeneous-l2

@fwyzard
Copy link
Contributor

fwyzard commented Feb 1, 2022

thanks for the ping, and apologies for the delay, I had simply missed that it required the heterogeneous signature :-(

@fwyzard
Copy link
Contributor

fwyzard commented Feb 1, 2022

+heterogeneous

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 1, 2022

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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 1, 2022

+1

  • File move implemented as planned, and propagated where needed

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.

Placement of phase1PixelTopology.h
7 participants