Skip to content

Remove Run 3 PU GPU workflows #51159

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
cmsbuild merged 1 commit into from
Jun 17, 2026
+0 −26
Merged

Remove Run 3 PU GPU workflows #51159

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
26 changes: 0 additions & 26 deletions Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_gpu.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,9 +17,6 @@

# mc WFs to run in IB:

# no PU Alpaka pixel-only TTbar: quadruplets any backend and profiling; ECAL-only any backend; HCAL-only any backend and profiling
# mc 2025
# (Alpaka wfs to be removed, kept here to be used by the bot in the transition)
# mc 2026
# no PU
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: TTbar: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
Expand All @@ -30,15 +27,6 @@
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: ZMM: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka pixel-only triplets: ZMM: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: Single Nu E10: any backend

@fwyzard fwyzard Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shouldn't these be removed as well ?

@makortel makortel Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I kept the Run 3 noPU workflows for now because they technically run and the exact route to dismantle Run 1-3 reconstruction (and simulation) capability in 20_1_X has not been agreed yet. I'm happy to remove them though if that is deemed appropriate.

@makortel makortel Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 Any thoughts?

@AdrianoDee AdrianoDee Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had a similar doubt, not specifically related to these GPU wfs. In my personal opinion, we should start removing the Run1-3 wfs in general. Unless we want to keep Run1-3 capabilities still alive in 20_1_X for some reason.

@makortel makortel Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

At the time of the release planning XC a month ago (https://indico.cern.ch/event/1678193/) 4 use cases for running (parts of) Run 3 data/simulation in 20_1_X (and possibly beyond)

  1. High-pileup /EGamma*/Run2025G-v1/RAW data for ECAL+EGamma phase 2 developments (Tests for processing /EGamma*/Run2025G-v1/RAW in CMSSW_20 #50773)
  2. Workflow for (HLT, offline) algorithm benchmarking
  3. Validation of big changes in MC truth infrastructure
  4. PF reconstruction on Run 3 high PU data (Enabling PF reconstruction in Phase-2 CMSSW on Run-3 highPU RAW data #50885)

To my knowledge the fate of these use cases has not been decided. There was some discussion on the PF use case in https://indico.cern.ch/event/1681572/, but I'm not aware of further discussion on the others.

@makortel makortel Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suggest to move the general discussion on how long the Run 1-3 processing capability is needed to #51191 and the per use case issues linked therein.

In the meantime I think it would be nice to avoid reporting the failures of these workflows in the IBs.

# with PU
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: TTbar with PU: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka pixel-only triplets: TTbar with PU: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka ECAL-only: TTbar with PU: any backend
# Alpaka HCAL-only: TTbar with PU: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka with full reco and pixel-only: TTbar with PU: any backend quadruplets, any backend triplets
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: ZMM with PU: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka pixel-only triplets: ZMM with PU: any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling
# Alpaka pixel-only quadruplets: Single Nu E10 with PU: any backend
# mc Run4
# no PU
# Alpaka pixel-only: TTbar: quadruplets any backend, CA Extension any backend, any backend vs cpu validation, profiling, triplets
Expand All @@ -52,8 +40,6 @@
# Alpaka LST-only: TTbar: TRK-only w/ 2 iterations and LST building on any backend
# Alpaka HLTTiming75e33: TTbar: any backend
numWFIB = [
# 2025, Alpaka-based (to be removed, used by the bot)
17034.422, 17034.403, 17034.406, 17034.412, 17034.402, 17034.423,
# 2026, Alpaka-based noPU
18434.402, 18434.403, 18434.404,
18434.406, 18434.407, 18434.408,
Expand All @@ -66,18 +52,6 @@
18450.406, 18450.407, 18450.408,
18461.402,

# 2026 with PU, Alpaka-based
18634.402, 18634.403, 18634.404,
18634.406, 18634.407, 18634.408,
18634.412, 18634.413, #18634.414
18634.422, 18634.423, 18634.424,
#18634.482, 18634.483, 18634.484
#18634.486, 18634.487, 18634.488
18634.492, 18634.493,
18650.402, 18650.403, 18650.404,
18650.406, 18650.407, 18650.408,
18661.402,

# Run4, Alpaka-based noPU
prefixDet+34.402, prefixDet+34.4021, prefixDet+34.403, prefixDet+34.404, prefixDet+34.406,
prefixDet+34.612,
Expand Down