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

L1T: remove l1ExtraParticles from stage 2 reco #36916

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 10, 2022

Conversation

bundocka
Copy link
Contributor

@bundocka bundocka commented Feb 8, 2022

Fix addressing #36806 #36806

Removes l1ExtraParticles from Stage 2 L1T reconstruction, which should not be included for Stage 2 (only Stage 1).

Tested with:

runTheMatrix.py --what standard -l 138.4 --command "--conditions 123X_dataRun3_Prompt_dd4hep_Candidate_2022_02_07_15_17_27 -n 1000" -t 8

No longer see error:
"No "L1CaloGeometryRecord" record found in the EventSetup."
since the l1ExtraParticles producer that asks for this record is no longer called in the Stage 2 L1T reco.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 8, 2022

urgent

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 8, 2022

type bug-fix

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 8, 2022

@cmsbuild , please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 8, 2022

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36916/28225

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 8, 2022

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

It involves the following packages:

  • L1Trigger/Configuration (l1)

@epalencia, @rekovic, @cecilecaillol can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol 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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 8, 2022

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6054b0/22296/summary.html
COMMIT: 07db6f1
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-02-08-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36916/22296/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

RelVals

  • 11634.011634.0_TTbar_14TeV+2021+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA/step3_TTbar_14TeV+2021+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA.log
  • 11634.711634.7_TTbar_14TeV+2021_trackingMkFit+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano/step3_TTbar_14TeV+2021_trackingMkFit+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano.log
  • 11634.91411634.914_TTbar_14TeV+2021_DDDDB+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA/step3_TTbar_14TeV+2021_DDDDB+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA.log
Expand to see more relval errors ...

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 8, 2022

@cms-sw/orp-l2 the issue doesnt actually seem to be coming from this PR, is there a github issue already for what the reason for the failure is?

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 8, 2022

Sorry I was probably wrong, I guess the l1extraparticles somehow propagate to the HLTriggerOfflineExotica in the MC @bundocka I think what you need to do is to have the Run-3 era connected to this change, so it will be kept for the MC (if it's really used there -- if not, please change the MC code so it doesnt consume it)

#
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_stage2L1Trigger_cff import stage2L1Trigger
stage2L1Trigger.toReplaceWith(L1Reco_L1Extra,cms.Sequence())
stage2L1Trigger.toReplaceWith(L1Reco_L1Extra_L1GtRecord,cms.Sequence())
stage2L1Trigger.toReplaceWith(L1Reco, cms.Sequence(l1extraParticles))
stage2L1Trigger.toReplaceWith(L1Reco, cms.Sequence())

Copy link
Contributor

@tvami tvami Feb 8, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
stage2L1Trigger.toReplaceWith(L1Reco, cms.Sequence(l1extraParticles))
from Configuration.Eras.Era_Run3_cff import Run3
_L1Reco_forRun3 = L1Reco.copyAndExclude([l1extraParticles])
Run3.toReplaceWith(L1Reco, _L1Reco_forRun3)

wouldnt this work?

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Feb 9, 2022

Hi @bundocka
Thanks for the fix. Would you mind explaining a bit more in detail? Is the tag being used in Stage-1 (after removing from Stage-2)? And how the tag is used, i.e. why it is very old and no update?

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

The DQM code of the HLT needs to be reviewed and updated.
You can remove the line which cause the problem:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_12_3_X/HLTriggerOffline/Exotica/python/analyses/hltExoticaMETplusTrack_cff.py#L18

(this solves the crash in 12434.0 , I'm currently checking the other wfs)

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

The DQM code of the HLT needs to be reviewed and updated. You can remove the line which cause the problem: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_12_3_X/HLTriggerOffline/Exotica/python/analyses/hltExoticaMETplusTrack_cff.py#L18

(this solves the crash in 12434.0 , I'm currently checking the other wfs)

Thanks, @silviodonato for reviewing
@tvami Is this PR really urgent? I mean we can survive with an obsolete tag for now, I assume. Or I miss any technical details that make this to be an urgent fix.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/l1-l2
Do we have a place where the development plan of L1T SW is presented? I think it is a good idea that we need to sync a bit. This is not only for Run-3 but also Phase-2 and how do you plan to maintain legacy Run-1, Run-2 in new CMSSW. Is the RECO meeting, or release meeting a good place? Or at any L1T forum.

FYI @dpiparo @perrotta @qliphy

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 10, 2022

@tvami Is this PR really urgent? I mean we can survive with an obsolete tag for now, I assume. Or I miss any technical details that make this to be an urgent fix.

Yes, the original issue was that this was going to be the only non-DD4HEP tag. Since apparently it's "not consumed" while it's consumed (I dont really understand what was happening in hltExoticaValidator -- were we just validating this tag that hasnt changed since 2015, I guess that brings up the point of the validation, anyway going back to the original though) I guess we could survive with having the obsolete tag in.

On the other hand
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1123504/#1-news
slide 9
"Build 12.2.1 today/tomorrow"
I'm also hopeful that this PR will now pass the tests so we can push in the backport in the given timeframe above.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6054b0/22330/summary.html
COMMIT: 34c6503
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-02-09-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36916/22330/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
  • Reco comparison results: 3 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 46
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3764360
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 12
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3764322
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -17.294 KiB( 45 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): -2.845 KiB HLT/Exotica
  • Checked 193 log files, 42 edm output root files, 46 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 2 / 45 workflows

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe I don't fully understand the issue of cpu-time we spend in the wrong sequence here. Is this documented somewhere? If it is not a big deal, I would propose we do this in the moment that we understand better the situation of L1T development. In addition to Carl's comment, the tag is neither DDD nor DD4hep. It should not be counted as DD4hep migration.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

Dear all, we have stopped the building of 12_2_1 because we were asked to wait for this PR.
Please, either proceed with it, or agree among yourselves that this is not actually needed in 12_2, and we'll start building the release without it.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 10, 2022

My opinion is that since this PR finally converged we should merge it, but it's not under AlCa signature so kindly pinging @cms-sw/dqm-l2 @cms-sw/l1-l2

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1
10 MEs removed in folder: HLT/Exotica/METplusTrack

@cecilecaillol
Copy link
Contributor

+l1

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

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, All, since it's already there, we should merge it. This will allow us to process the entire 0.5B events as a step chain, so this will be much more efficient, if we can get it to work. Considering the geometry (including DD4HEP) migration was also really "due" last fall, it's beyond time to get it in.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

  • @bundocka please prepare a backport PR to 12_2_X

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Feb 10, 2022

+1

  • @bundocka please prepare a backport PR to 12_2_X

I did it in #36930

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, All, since it's already there, we should merge it. This will allow us to process the entire 0.5B events as a step chain, so this will be much more efficient, if we can get it to work. Considering the geometry (including DD4HEP) migration was also really "due" last fall, it's beyond time to get it in.

I don't understand why you say that we can't run stepchain without this PR. This part is under L1Reco where we do stepchain since Run-2. No?

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