Skip to content
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

Total removal of sdl/SDL #72

Merged

Conversation

VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator

@VourMa VourMa commented Jul 30, 2024

Proposing the total removal of "sdl" or "SDL" from our code. This means:

  • Renaming of some variables in the main part of the code (done in 961d01e, transparent change)
  • Renaming the remaining standalone code, including directories, scripts, efficiency code and makefiles (done in d378a59). This change is more complicated, as it changes some of the commands, e.g. sdl_make_tracklooper -> lst_make_tracklooper for compilation. Due to that, I expect it to require changes in the standalone CI. The code compiles and runs fine locally.

const float sdlPVoff = 0.1f / rt_OutLo;
sdlCut = alpha1GeV_OutLo + alpaka::math::sqrt(acc, sdlMuls2 + sdlPVoff * sdlPVoff);
const float lstPVoff = 0.1f / rt_OutLo;
lstCut = alpha1GeV_OutLo + alpaka::math::sqrt(acc, lstMuls2 + lstPVoff * lstPVoff);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in this and a few other cases perhaps lst or sdl can be dropped completely and where appropriate replaced by a more clear name.
Here dPhiCut is more appropriate.

in the above muls2 or below thetaMuls2 would be clear enough

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, I can change these.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this file shouldn't be here (not even in the history)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, my bad. I will fix it with a force push while dealing with the rest of the comments.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

was removal of this intentional?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. This file is since long broken, as it is not maintained. We can discuss whether it is needed (see also the relevant SegmentLinking/TrackLooper#412 (comment))

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@VourMa VourMa changed the title [RFC] Total removal of sdl/SDL Total removal of sdl/SDL Jul 30, 2024
@VourMa VourMa marked this pull request as ready for review July 30, 2024 18:29
@VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

VourMa commented Jul 30, 2024

@ariostas When you get the time, could you check the updates needed for the standalone CI implied by this PR? Does the PR look ok and easily "accommodatable"?

Not to overcomplicate ourselves for now, we can run the CMSSW CI to verify the performance, and I made sure that the standalone workflow runs successfully to the end locally (plots).

@slava77
Copy link

slava77 commented Jul 30, 2024

/run all

@slava77
Copy link

slava77 commented Jul 30, 2024

/run all

let's see what actually breaks

Copy link

There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here.

@slava77
Copy link

slava77 commented Jul 30, 2024

I received also this for the linter job:
https://github.com/SegmentLinking/cmssw/actions/runs/10168947805
Error: Input required and not supplied: token

But then the PR shows that static checks are in progress.
@ariostas is this just new noise from the CI that it's sending notices while it's waiting for another job to complete?

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks
Efficiency and fake rate vs pT, eta, and phi

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

@ariostas
Copy link
Member

When you get the time, could you check the updates needed for the standalone CI implied by this PR? Does the PR look ok and easily "accommodatable"?

Yeah, I'll work on that.

is this just new noise from the CI that it's sending notices while it's waiting for another job to complete?

I think what happened was that your second comment also included the "run all" string, so it cancelled the previous jobs and started new ones

@ariostas
Copy link
Member

I think it should work now.

/run standalone

Copy link

There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here.

@ariostas
Copy link
Member

Second try.

/run standalone

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

Efficiency vs pT comparison Efficiency vs eta comparison
Fake rate vs pT comparison Fake rate vs eta comparison
Duplicate rate vs pT comparison Duplicate rate vs eta comparison

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

Here is a timing comparison:

   Evt    Hits       MD       LS      T3       T5       pLS       pT5      pT3      TC       Reset    Event     Short             Rate
   avg     47.0    322.4    117.2     47.8     92.5    494.6    125.6    145.8    101.7      2.4    1496.8     955.3+/- 251.9     409.3   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.3    323.8    117.7     46.7     92.5    494.5    125.4    145.7    102.3      2.6    1498.5     956.7+/- 249.2     409.4   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

@slava77
Copy link

slava77 commented Jul 31, 2024

/run all

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

Efficiency vs pT comparison Efficiency vs eta comparison
Fake rate vs pT comparison Fake rate vs eta comparison
Duplicate rate vs pT comparison Duplicate rate vs eta comparison

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

Here is a timing comparison:

   Evt    Hits       MD       LS      T3       T5       pLS       pT5      pT3      TC       Reset    Event     Short             Rate
   avg     47.4    321.2    118.5     48.6     92.2    494.7    126.2    145.6    100.7      4.3    1499.3     957.3+/- 248.6     410.7   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.0    325.1    119.3     48.2     93.7    495.3    126.7    147.8    101.4      1.9    1506.4     964.1+/- 253.2     411.7   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks
Efficiency and fake rate vs pT, eta, and phi

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

@slava77 slava77 merged commit ecd8e3e into CMSSW_14_1_0_pre3_LST_X_LSTCore_realfiles_batch4 Jul 31, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants