[RFC] Draft of PR to CMSSW

[makortel]

No description provided.

[slava77]

how does this differ from what's already in CMSSW_11_2_0_mkFit_X?

[makortel]

Do we want to include a customize function for the HLT iter0? (there is a risk for future maintenance effort given that it would be part of a runTheMatrix workflow)

[makortel]

how does this differ from what's already in CMSSW_11_2_0_mkFit_X?

• References to detachedTripletStep, mixedTripletStep, pixelLessStep, and tobTecStep are removed
• RecoTracker/MkFit/python/input.py and RecoTracker/MkFit/test/reco_cfg.py are removed
• Few fixes to customizeHLTIter0ToMkFit #16 is included
• Rebased on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre6

[slava77]

References to detachedTripletStep, mixedTripletStep, pixelLessStep, and tobTecStep are removed

I'm not sure this is expected.
I was expecting that we port everything and just not add these iterations at the trackingMkFit = cms.ModifierChain(

[makortel]

References to detachedTripletStep, mixedTripletStep, pixelLessStep, and tobTecStep are removed

I'm not sure this is expected.
I was expecting that we port everything and just not add these iterations at the trackingMkFit = cms.ModifierChain(

I wasn't clear on last Friday then :( I find it a bit more clear to provide customizations only for those iterations that we actually enable with trackingMkFit ModifierChain.

[slava77]

I wasn't clear on last Friday then :( I find it a bit more clear to provide customizations only for those iterations that we actually enable with trackingMkFit ModifierChain.

IMHO, this will make the overhead for testing these "not yet enabled" iterations too high.
Instead of being able to test essentially directly on top of CMSSW, we'll need out private PRs

BTW, the more recent version with cleaning by shared hit enabled already looks like pixelLessStep and tobTecStep can be enabled.

[makortel]

I wasn't clear on last Friday then :( I find it a bit more clear to provide customizations only for those iterations that we actually enable with trackingMkFit ModifierChain.

IMHO, this will make the overhead for testing these "not yet enabled" iterations too high.
Instead of being able to test essentially directly on top of CMSSW, we'll need out private PRs

Fair point, although I had imagined that we'd anyway use a custom branch on top of CMSSW, and that our development would continue in 11_2_0. If the private RecoTracker/MkFit/test/reco_cfg.py is not that useful and people want to work on the bleeding edge of CMSSW (which has its own benefits), I can certainly add the customizations back to the "omitted" iterations.

[makortel]

The last two force-pushes include

• added back customizations for detachedTriplet, mixedTriplet, pixelLess, tobTec
  • detachedTriplet, mixedTriplet stay disabled by default
  • pixelLess and tobTec are enabled by default
• included Simplify includes #17

[slava77]

should we have a modifier and config for initialStepPreSplitting? I suppose that it can be the same as initialStep

[makortel]

should we have a modifier and config for initialStepPreSplitting? I suppose that it can be the same as initialStep

Eventually yes. If this is wanted for Monday, I might be able to add it on Friday. I suppose we'd need new MTV plots if we enable it by default, I won't have time to do that.

[slava77]

should we have a modifier and config for initialStepPreSplitting? I suppose that it can be the same as initialStep

Eventually yes. If this is wanted for Monday, I might be able to add it on Friday. I suppose we'd need new MTV plots if we enable it by default, I won't have time to do that.

I think that it should be OK to have this for a follow up later.
It's one of the most trivial items to reduce the total CPU time and it perhaps has the least impact on physics even if mkfit behavior is suboptimal.

[makortel]

This PR has served its purpose