ECAL - Remove ExternalWork from EcalUncalibRecHitProducerGPU

[thomreis]

PR description:

This PR removes edm::ExternalWork from the EcalUncalibRecHitProducerGPU module since it is not needed as has been noted here: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/37695/files#r872551283 .

No changes to the uncalibrated RecHits are expected.

PR validation:

Passes 11634.512.
No differences in uncalibrated RecHit amplitudes (100 events).
No significant difference in timing.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39193/31804

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @thomreis (Thomas Reis) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• RecoLocalCalo/EcalRecProducers (reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@youyingli, @rchatter, @argiro, @apsallid, @thomreis, @simonepigazzini this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[jpata]

enable gpu

[jpata]

@cmsbuild please test

[jpata]

assign heterogeneous

(kindly asking the experts to take a look)

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: heterogeneous

@fwyzard,@makortel you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a03e05/27117/summary.html
COMMIT: f857a49
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-08-25-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: GPU
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39193/27117/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: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• Reco comparison had 3 failed jobs
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 4
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 19876
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 10
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 19866
• 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: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3695708
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 25
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3695660
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 50 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[fwyzard]

@thomreis thanks for the PR.
Looks good from my side, I'll check the impact on the runtime perfomance and sign it.

[thomreis]

Thanks @fwyzard. Do we want this in 12_5 if the runtime impact is OK?

[fwyzard]

As expected there isn't a significant impact on the runtime (maybe a marginal improvement, but it's within the precision of the measurement).

Before:

Running 4 times over 10100 events with 8 jobs, each with 32 threads, 32 streams and 1 GPUs
   802.9 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 98.9% overlap)
   802.5 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 98.9% overlap)
   802.7 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 99.6% overlap)
   804.7 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 98.6% overlap)
 --------------------
   803.2 ±   1.0 ev/s

After:

Running 4 times over 10100 events with 8 jobs, each with 32 threads, 32 streams and 1 GPUs
   803.7 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 99.0% overlap)
   803.7 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 98.9% overlap)
   803.5 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 99.1% overlap)
   804.7 ±   0.2 ev/s (9800 events, 98.3% overlap)
 --------------------
   803.9 ±   0.5 ev/s

[fwyzard]

+heterogeneous

[fwyzard]

Thanks @fwyzard. Do we want this in 12_5 if the runtime impact is OK?

Yes, I think we want it in 12.4.x and 12.5.x.
Could you make the PRs ?

[mandrenguyen]

+1

[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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[rappoccio]

Hi @smuzaffar , the checks are a bit confusing here, it has "bot/39257/jenkins" as "Pending -- Waiting for authorized user to issue the test command" but the tests were triggered and successful. Any ideas?

[smuzaffar]

@rappoccio , the checks are attached to git commit, so if same branch is used to open multiple PRs then this happens. In this case commit f857a49 is used by both this PR and #39257 that is why bot/39257/jenkins is also shown here. You will also see bot/39193/* types checks for #39257 .

Note the cms-bot is going to use correct checks ( e.g. for this PR bot/39193/* checks) to mark the status of PR pass or failed

[rappoccio]

Thanks @smuzaffar, so this one is safe to merge then. @thomreis you will have to rebase the 12_5_X version to 12_5_X to clear the discrepancy, please.

[rappoccio]

+1