forked from cms-sw/cmssw
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Use central phi functions instead LST ones #146
Merged
slava77
merged 1 commit into
master
from
CMSSW_14_2_0_pre4_workflowsAndGeneralFunctions_squashed
Jan 31, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
@VourMa
remind me please the rationale of using
reco::deltaPhi(T phi1, T phi2)
vscms::alpakatools::deltaPhi(TAcc const& acc, T phi1, T phi2)
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.
Closely following what was there before. That said, I am not sure why we ended up with
calculate_dPhi(phi1, phi2)
and not somethingalpaka
related.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.
uhm, but isn't the implementation different (the old was a single 2π shift vs new using somewhat pseudo-constexpr reducedRange),
unless by "closely" you mean "it didn't have acc" before
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.
About following closely, it is the latter.
About your first point, my understanding is that using
reduceRange
is safer, as it accounts for multiple "wraparounds" of φ, but let me know if I didn't get it right.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.
I'd aim to use the same code that defines dphi from x,y "directly" and after computing phi. My concern is that the computation path x,y -> phi followed by a call to dPhi for a pair of items is different from computing it directly from a pair of two
x,y
s in the same parts of the code base. ... also I'm still bothered by pseudo-constexpr in the reco case as was discussed with Matti.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.
Ok, my bad, I thought it was pT5s we were looking at.
Do you want to change this? If so, do you want to do it in this PR?
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.
Ok. Would you like to make a comment in the cms-sw PR to mention that we'd better use the alpaka version, and then I can follow up on that?
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.
it's better in this PR
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.
I stayed away from bringing this up in the cms-sw PR due to the review availability issues for heterogeneous, where weeks long delays are typical
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.
Ok, then I will force push the
reco::deltaPhi(T phi1, T phi2)
->cms::alpakatools::deltaPhi(TAcc const& acc, T phi1, T phi2)
change a bit later today.