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

New set of files coherent with the new v1_0_0 L1Menu #37453

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 7, 2022

Conversation

elfontan
Copy link
Contributor

@elfontan elfontan commented Apr 4, 2022

PR description:

A full set of xml files for the L1 emulation of prescales and masks coherent with the updated L1 menu for Run 3 has been created and pushed to L1Trigger-L1TGlobal (PR#9). Once that these new files will be available in cms-data, we will proceed with the coherent update of these files. The update is targeting CMSSW_12_3_0.
The current version of the updated L1 Menu is L1Menu_Collisions2022_v1_0_0.
(Previous reference PR #37138)

In the context of the trigger studies for the preparation of the Run 3 menu (L1+HLT), we recently faced an issue related to the emulation of the L1 prescales. Two different issues were found out:

  • format of the PS table (some documentation and a recipe can be found here);
  • usage of the fractional PS (PR#37046).

PR validation:

Basic tests performed successfully starting from CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-04-03-2300.
From CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-04-03-2300/src:

scram b distclean
git cms-checkdeps -a -A
scram b -j 8
scram b runtests
scram build code-checks
scram build code-format

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 4, 2022

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37453/29148

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 4, 2022

A new Pull Request was created by @elfontan (Elisa Fontanesi) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • L1Trigger/Configuration (l1)
  • L1Trigger/L1TGlobal (l1)

@epalencia, @cmsbuild, @cecilecaillol, @rekovic 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

@elfontan elfontan marked this pull request as ready for review April 6, 2022 10:00
@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

test parameters:

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2022

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b038a2/23700/summary.html
COMMIT: 3626309
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-04-06-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/37453/23700/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-b038a2/23700/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b038a2/23700/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
  • Reco comparison results: 13990 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3593033
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 77883
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3515124
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.02 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 136.874,... ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 138.4 ): -0.004 KiB JetMET/SUSYDQM
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 138.5 ): -0.008 KiB JetMET/SUSYDQM
  • Checked 200 log files, 45 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 11 / 47 workflows

@epalencia
Copy link
Contributor

+l1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 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)

@missirol
Copy link
Contributor

missirol commented Apr 7, 2022

The update is targeting CMSSW_12_3_0.

@elfontan , do I understand correctly that the plan is to backport this PR (and the cms-data one) in time for 12_3_0? If so, maybe this PR needs to be marked as urgent (and the backport opened soon).

@elfontan
Copy link
Contributor Author

elfontan commented Apr 7, 2022

Yes @missirol that's correct!
Just one note. These updates are really minor, given that, as explained in cms-data/L1Trigger-L1TGlobal#9, these files are not used in any standard workflow. This is why we were not marking them as "URGENT". However, I think that it would be good for clarity to have consistency in the usage of the menu (and related files) between the GTs and the other parts of the code.

@missirol
Copy link
Contributor

missirol commented Apr 7, 2022

Thanks, Elisa.

Just one note. These updates are really minor, given that, as explained in cms-data/L1Trigger-L1TGlobal#9, these files are not used in any standard workflow.

Besides standard wfs, I understand that having these updates (incl. cms-data/L1Trigger-L1TGlobal#9) would also be useful for groups measuring rates with the latest L1T menu (cc: @sanuvarghese @silviodonato).

My suggestion is to mark this as urgent, open the backport to 12_3_X of this PR, and ask in cms-data/L1Trigger-L1TGlobal#9 to backport that cms-data tag update to 12_3_X.

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks Marino, indeed, even though they are not strictly necessary, it would be useful to have it in the release.
Given they do not affect any workflow, I think there will be no objections to have a last-minute backport.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Apr 7, 2022

+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

7 participants