Fix Alpaka Harvesting for Phase2

[AdrianoDee]

PR description:

In the latest IBs we have a couple of failures for Phase2 *.403 wfs due to the fact that the heterogenous harvesting step tries to run the RAW data harvester (serial and device). This PR proposes a small change to fix that.

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -l 29634.403 runs

[AdrianoDee]

type bug-fix

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-45963/41715

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/SiPixelHeterogeneous (dqm)

@antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @nothingface0, @rvenditti, @syuvivida, @tjavaid can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fioriNTU, @idebruyn, @jandrea, @mmusich, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[AdrianoDee]

test parameters:

• workflows_gpu =12834.403, 29834.403, 29634.496
• relvals_opt_gpu = --what upgrade

[AdrianoDee]

enable gpu

[AdrianoDee]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4a0d98/41416/summary.html
COMMIT: b9c2214
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_2_X_2024-09-09-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
Additional Tests: GPU
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/45963/41416/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 2 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 106 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 44
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3331158
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2849
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3328289
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 43 files compared)
• Checked 193 log files, 163 edm output root files, 44 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

GPU Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
29834.403 step 4
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

Summary:

• You potentially removed 9 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 60 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 9
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 169468
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7314
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 162154
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 8 files compared)
• Checked 32 log files, 38 edm output root files, 9 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[mmusich]

urgent

• fixes the IB failures

[mmusich]

----- Begin Fatal Exception 09-Sep-2024 10:52:41 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'NoRecord' occurred while
   [0] Processing global end LuminosityBlock run: 1 luminosityBlock: 59
   [1] Calling method for module SiPixelPhase1Harvester/'siPixelPhase1RawDataHarvesterDevice'
Exception Message:
No "SiPixelFedCablingMapRcd" record found in the EventSetup.

 Please add an ESSource or ESProducer that delivers such a record.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

wondering if the harvester should also be made fool-proof against missing input conditions (generally we do let harvesting run even upon missing inputs) @cms-sw/trk-dpg-l2 .

[AdrianoDee]

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 gentle ping

[antoniovagnerini]

hi @AdrianoDee , we observe some small differences in the bin-by-bin GPU comparison for the WF 29834.403, eg. in the number of tracks, see for instance https://tinyurl.com/28wcaf43 , is this expected?

[AdrianoDee]

Hi @antoniovagnerini thanks for the feedback. Yes, these are ascribable to the "usual" fluctuations we'd expect for this kind of GPU workflows.

[antoniovagnerini]

+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. @rappoccio, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[mandrenguyen]

+1