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 PyBind11 interpreter management into its own sentry class #39157

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 24, 2022

Conversation

makortel
Copy link
Contributor

@makortel makortel commented Aug 23, 2022

PR description:

The use of a separate class will guarantee that the interpreter will be shut down properly even if the PyBind11ProcessDesc constructor would throw an exception. Resolves #39147.

PR validation:

Framework unit tests pass in the LTO build.

The use of a separate class will guarantee that the interpreter will
be shut down properly even if the PyBind11ProcessDesc constructor
would throw an exception.
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39157/31738

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • FWCore/PythonParameterSet (core)

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

cms-bot commands are listed here

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild, please test

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild, please test for CMSSW_12_5_LTO_X

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a52e3a/27026/summary.html
COMMIT: d77a36f
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-08-23-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39157/27026/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
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3693084
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3693054
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a52e3a/27027/summary.html
COMMIT: d77a36f
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_LTO_X_2022-08-23-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39157/27027/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
  • Reco comparison results: 1014 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3693084
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11109
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3681953
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Dr15Jones Do you agree?

@Dr15Jones
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+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.

[LTO] TestFWCoreFrameworkeventprocessor unit test failure
4 participants