cms-sw
Profiling at T0 AlCa and DQM workflows
Follow up to the issue 36282 and cmsTalk https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/high-memory-usage-in-promptreco-jobs-for-run-352516/11040
So the issue is that the wf chosen in github issue 36282 is based on the MET dataset, thus AlCaHcalHBHEMuonProducer is not run on it. (It's attached to the MinBias and SingleMuon).
This is a general issue for testing, certain ALCARECOs belong to certain PDs (as defined in the AlCaRECO matrix). i.e. we either do the testing on several wf, or just decide to pick one that has most of the ALCARECOs connected to it. That would be SingleMuon.
If that's the prefered solution, we can set up a new wf after the Run3 single muon PD is done (next week?)
A new Issue was created by @tvami Tamas Vami.
@Dr15Jones, @perrotta, @dpiparo, @makortel, @smuzaffar, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.
cms-bot commands are listed here
New categories assigned: dqm,alca
@jfernan2,@ahmad3213,@yuanchao,@micsucmed,@rvenditti,@emanueleusai,@francescobrivio,@malbouis,@tvami,@pmandrik you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks
New categories assigned: reconstruction
@jpata,@slava77,@clacaputo you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks
How many events are processed for the plots in http://cms-reco-profiling.web.cern.ch/cms-reco-profiling/results/summary_plot_html/CMSSW_12_4_step3_136.889.html ? (I'm confused of the x axis)
It's 5k events: https://github.com/cms-sw/cms-bot/blob/master/reco_profiling/profileRunner.py#L95.
The plot has event IDs on the x axis, we need to change that (cc @xoqhdgh1002) to be just numbers.
It's 5k events:
Thanks, good. That should be sufficient for this particular leak (or even smaller) to be visible (this would have been ~1.2 GB after 5k events).
@tvami, should we take any action here? Is there a new workflow we should switch to that would be more representative?
Hi @jpata we could use a run from this Monday. However, it will likely have limited stats, although if the tests go up to 5000 events that could probably be reached
We test about 5k now, so it wouldn't be a big change. Is there a workflow so we can give a try, and you can see if the results are useful for ALCA?
@tocheng is going to create a new wf that you can use. He promised to look at this tomorrow.
@tvami Please let me know if this is what is needed. https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/compare/master...tocheng:ALCA_PCL_Run3_CMSSW_12_5_X?expand=1
Hi @tocheng these are the ALCARECOs in the alcareco matrix connected to the single muon:
| SingleMuon | TkAlMuonIsolated, HcalCalIterativePhiSym, MuAlCalIsolatedMu, HcalCalHO, HcalCalHBHEMuonProducerFilter, SiPixelCalSingleMuonLoose, SiPixelCalSingleMuonTight |
|---|
I think you missed some of them, please add those! Thanks!
And maybe we could add another one, which is purely a technical wf that adds all the ALCARECOs to the MinBias PD... this of course would physically be incorrect, but would test everything under one wf...
@tocheng please submit the PR, at this point we have good Run-3, 13.6 TeV input data
Thanks! Which of the two new workflows should we use this instead of 136.889? From the reco point of view they are all equivalent, so the question is, which has the most representative ALCA configuration.
Note that on the reco side, we basically submit and analyze this 8-threaded profiling job "by hand" for each prerelease - so we don't have the personpower to study a large number of workflows per release at this time.
@clacaputo @mandrenguyen hi guys, do you you know if the 1001.3 is being profiled after all?