-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Backport of #14179: Speed up Jet Producer for HLT #15226
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_8_0_X. It involves the following packages: RecoJets/JetProducers @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are list here #13028 |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Timing tests are in progress... |
tracked at #15151 |
HLT/RECO timing tests in progress... |
An HLT timing test was performed using a config provided by TSG and run on file /store/group/dpg_trigger/comm_trigger/TriggerStudiesGroup/Timing/run276935/HLTPhysics_Run276935_LS80-220.root. The PR was compared to baseline CMSSW_8_0_14. CPU time shrank by about 1%. The Jet Producer showed improvement:
Another measure of the mean time to process an event also shows a 1% improvement: |
On 7/22/16 3:29 PM, Carl Vuosalo wrote:
This looks like a count per running module. Thank you.
|
+1 Speeding up the jet producer for HLT. There should be no change in monitored quantities. #14179 is the 81X version of this PR , and it was included 810pre4. The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_8_0_X_2016-07-17-2300 show no significant differences, as expected. A test of workflow 25202.0_TTbar_13 with 70 events against baseline CMSSW_8_0_14 also shows no significant differences. An HLT timing test described above shows about a 1% improvement in timing. Corrected per-module timing measurements (compared to those shown above) also show an overall 1% improvement:
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
@cvuosalo |
@slava77: Yes, the total of the per-module times show a 0.4% improvement in timing. The overall times (including in this plot https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/files/379170/HLT_Validation_Plot.pdf) show about a 1% improvement, but the bulk of that might just be noise. |
+1 |
This PR backports #14179 from CMSSW_8_1_X to CMSSW_8_0_X. Original description by @VinInn:
Tested in CMSSW_8_0_14, no changes expected in RECO quantities in there either.
@fwyzard @gennai @VinInn @slava77