Multi-threading support

[kkrajczar]

The purpose of this PR is to migrate four CMSSW "legacy" modules used by the Heavy Ions HLT to multi-threading compliant forms. For reference, the Hypernews thread on HLT Development about this change is https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/hlt/3872.html.

A backport to 74X will follow shortly. Thanks to @cfmcinn for testing the PR'd changes.

@Martin-Grunewald, @perrotta, @fwyzard, @cfmcinn, @yetkinyilmaz, @richard-cms might want to follow this PR.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kkrajczar (Krisztian Krajczar) for CMSSW_7_5_X.

Multi-threading support

It involves the following packages:

RecoEcal/EgammaClusterProducers
RecoHI/HiEgammaAlgos

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @nclopezo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Sam-Harper, @jazzitup, @argiro, @appeltel, @richard-cms, @yenjie, @kurtejung, @lgray, @mandrenguyen, @dgulhan, @yetkinyilmaz this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@nclopezo you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[fwyzard]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 879f2f5
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9071/7545/summary.html

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #9071 879f2f5

Migration of HI HLT code to support multi-threading. It should not change monitored physics quantities.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-12-2300 show no significant differences, as expected.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @nclopezo, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1