migrate Validation/DTRecHits DQM sources to concurrent DQM (10.1.x) #22082
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
type bugfix |
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22082/3211 |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @fwyzard (Andrea Bocci) for master. It involves the following packages: Validation/DTRecHits @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @vanbesien can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@battibass, this should take care of the migration to concurrent DQM; I did not try to address the part of the code that should be moved to the harvesting step. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
|
||
| class DTRecHitQuality : public edm::EDAnalyzer { | ||
| class DTRecHitQuality : public DQMGlobalEDAnalyzer<Histograms> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do these need to be concurrent EDAnalyzer?
The usual DQM migration should have been enough...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because a DQMGlobalEDAnalyzer takes N times less memory than a DQMEDAnalyzer (where N is the number of concurrent streams in the job), makes the endRun() transitions faster, and has no downsides that I know of.
| void DT2DSegmentClients::endLuminosityBlock(edm::LuminosityBlock const& lumi, | ||
| edm::EventSetup const& setup) | ||
| { | ||
| DQMStore* dbe = Service<DQMStore>().operator->(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DT2DSegmentClients should become DQMEDHarvester. DQMStore should really never be accessed.
The analyze is empty and harvester does gives you the dqmEndLuminosityBlock call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I wrote 4 days ago
this should take care of the migration to concurrent DQM; I did not try to address the part of the code that should be moved to the harvesting step.
The DT or DQM groups can take care of this further migration in a separate PR.
|
@vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @jfernan2 |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22082/3293 |
|
Pull request #22082 was updated. @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @vanbesien can you please check and sign again. |
|
Fixed the changes at https://github.com/fwyzard/cmssw/blob/22272848740d21e4b6aaedf8c2cf0e3cff3cb095/Validation/DTRecHits/plugins/DTRecHitQuality.cc#L56_L60 . |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
dqm-approved
fully-signed
and removed
dqm-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
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. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
please merge ? |
|
@fabiocos , what do I need to do to get the same preferential treatment as the framework changes, and have my PRs merged within 12 hours instead of 12 days ? |
|
+1 |
No description provided.