HcalDQM: GPU MonitoringTask

[lwang046]

PR description:

Add a new HCal DQM task for CPU vs GPU reconstruction validation.

PR verification:

Verified on gpu machine with workflow 11634.522, modifying step3 of cmsDriver command to use -s DQM:@hcalOnlyGPU

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36998/28393

• This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-checks:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36998/28393/code-checks.patch
  e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36998/28393/code-checks.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-checks to apply code checks directly

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36998/28394

• This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @lwang046 for master.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/HcalCommon (dqm)
• DQM/HcalTasks (dqm)
• DQMOffline/Configuration (dqm)

@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@bsunanda, @abdoulline, @DryRun, @threus, @rociovilar 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

[jfernan2]

enable gpu

[jfernan2]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff70cf/22505/summary.html
COMMIT: 74a9a3e
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-02-18-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: GPU
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36998/22505/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

GPU Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 4
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 19811
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1926
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 17885
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 3 files compared)
• Checked 12 log files, 9 edm output root files, 4 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3965143
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 14
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3965107
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 204 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[abdoulline]

May be I'm missing something, but I don't see any issue for HCAL in 11634.506

[lwang046]

I don't see the HCal GPU plots appearing. I think the default workflow is still using -s DQM:hcalOnly in the test. While the step that invokes HCal GPU module is called hcalOnlyGPU in the committed branch

[jfernan2]

I confirm @lwang046 statement:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff70cf/22505/runTheMatrixGPU-results/11634.506_TTbar_14TeV+2021_Patatrack_PixelOnlyTripletsGPU+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano/cmdLog

But, shouldn't you use 11634.522 instead? It already has hcalOnly* sequences,
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff70cf/22505/runTheMatrixGPU-results/11634.522_TTbar_14TeV+2021_Patatrack_HCALOnlyGPU+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano/cmdLog

hcalOnlyGPU may be included in hcalOnly with a switch which detects if GPU is available, like Tracker is doing

[jfernan2]

This evolving PR from ECAL is having the same discussion:
#36742

[abdoulline]

Thanks @jfernan2 and @lwang046.
2 days ago I've just thrown a shallow look at available plots, where DQM bin-by-bin was OK (as expected) and didn't realize the targeted plots weren't there...

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff70cf/22695/summary.html
COMMIT: 723a014
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-02-26-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: GPU
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36998/22695/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

GPU Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 24 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 4
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 19811
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 955
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 18856
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 3 files compared)
• Checked 12 log files, 9 edm output root files, 4 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 2 / 3 workflows

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4001143
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4001113
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 204 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[fwyzard]

+heterogeneous

[perrotta]

Since it was addressed in #36998 (comment): shouldn't a dedicated workflow to run both the CPU and GPU reconstruction be added? If so, do you plan to add it in a separate PR, or would you prefer to have it included already here?

[fwyzard]

Yes, a new dedicated workflow is needed, but it should not be part of this PR.

[fwyzard]

I've created an issue about it in #37075 .

[perrotta]

I've created an issue about it in #37075 .

Thank you @fwyzard

[perrotta]

+operations

[cmsbuild]

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)

[perrotta]

+1