-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Total removal of sdl/SDL #72
Conversation
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); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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). |
/run all |
let's see what actually breaks |
There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here. |
I received also this for the linter job: But then the PR shows that static checks are in progress. |
The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots. OOTB All TracksThe full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here. |
Yeah, I'll work on that.
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 |
I think it should work now. /run standalone |
There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here. |
Second try. /run standalone |
The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots. The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here. Here is a timing comparison:
|
/run all |
The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots. The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here. Here is a timing comparison:
|
The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots. OOTB All TracksThe full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here. |
ecd8e3e
into
CMSSW_14_1_0_pre3_LST_X_LSTCore_realfiles_batch4
Proposing the total removal of "sdl" or "SDL" from our code. This means:
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.