Trigger input to FFReq 1. Specific Issues for Trigger The HLT trigger reconstruction is a bit different from the offline reconstruction: – The trigger.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Workflow Engine with Multi-Level Parallelism Supports Qifeng Huang and Yan Huang School of Computer Science Cardiff University
Advertisements

MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway Behavioural Interoperability to Support Model-Driven Systems Integration Alek Radjenovic, Richard Paige The University of York,
RPC & LVL1 Mu Barrel Online Monitoring during LS1 M. Della Pietra.
Sander Klous on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Real-Time May /5/20101.
5/2/  Online  Offline 5/2/20072  Online  Raw data : within the DAQ monitoring framework  Reconstructed data : with the HLT monitoring framework.
The ATLAS High Level Trigger Steering Journée de réflexion – Sept. 14 th 2007 Till Eifert DPNC – ATLAS group.
David Adams ATLAS DIAL Distributed Interactive Analysis of Large datasets David Adams BNL March 25, 2003 CHEP 2003 Data Analysis Environment and Visualization.
New muon EF trigger with offline supertools Sergio Grancagnolo INFN Lecce & Salento University.
16/27/2015 3:38 AM6/27/2015 3:38 AM6/27/2015 3:38 AMTesting and Debugging Testing The process of verifying the software performs to the specifications.
Process Concept An operating system executes a variety of programs
Operating Systems (CSCI2413) Lecture 3 Processes phones off (please)
Trigger and online software Simon George & Reiner Hauser T/DAQ Phase 1 IDR.
1 The ATLAS Online High Level Trigger Framework: Experience reusing Offline Software Components in the ATLAS Trigger Werner Wiedenmann University of Wisconsin,
Introduction to Computer Technology
Framework for Online Alignment 4th LHCb Computing Workshop 6 November 2014 Beat Jost / Cern.
L3 Filtering: status and plans D  Computing Review Meeting: 9 th May 2002 Terry Wyatt, on behalf of the L3 Algorithms group. For more details of current.
Shuei MEG review meeting, 2 July MEG Software Status MEG Software Group Framework Large Prototype software updates Database ROME Monte Carlo.
Algorithm / Data-flow Interface
REVIEW OF NA61 SOFTWRE UPGRADE PROPOSAL. Mandate The NA61 experiment is contemplating to rewrite its fortran software in modern technology and are requesting.
Trigger-aware analysis Current status Under development What’s missing Conclusions & Outlook Ricardo Gonçalo (RHUL)
RISICO on the GRID architecture First implementation Mirko D'Andrea, Stefano Dal Pra.
The New TrigDecision Nicolas Berger, Till Eifert, Ricardo Gonçalo Physics Analysis Tools session ATLAS Software Workshop – Munich, March 2007.
Nick Brook Current status Future Collaboration Plans Future UK plans.
Requirements for a Next Generation Framework: ATLAS Experience S. Kama, J. Baines, T. Bold, P. Calafiura, W. Lampl, C. Leggett, D. Malon, G. Stewart, B.
Level 3 Muon Software Paul Balm Muon Vertical Review May 22, 2000.
Databases E. Leonardi, P. Valente. Conditions DB Conditions=Dynamic parameters non-event time-varying Conditions database (CondDB) General definition:
Event Data History David Adams BNL Atlas Software Week December 2001.
System Analysis (Part 3) System Control and Review System Maintenance.
1 Michela Biglietti (Universita’ di Napoli-Federico II) Gabriella Cataldi (INFN Lecce) and the HLT.
Future Framework John Baines for the Future Framework Requirements Group 1.
1 “Steering the ATLAS High Level Trigger” COMUNE, G. (Michigan State University ) GEORGE, S. (Royal Holloway, University of London) HALLER, J. (CERN) MORETTINI,
The ATLAS Trigger: High-Level Trigger Commissioning and Operation During Early Data Taking Ricardo Gonçalo, Royal Holloway University of London On behalf.
9-13/9/03 Atlas Overview WeekPeter Sherwood 1 Atlfast, Artemis and Atlantis What, Where and How.
Navigation Timing Studies of the ATLAS High-Level Trigger Andrew Lowe Royal Holloway, University of London.
TDAQ Upgrade Software Plans John Baines, Tomasz Bold Contents: Future Framework Exploitation of future Technologies Work for Phase-II IDR.
Design Patterns Definition:
5/2/  Online  Offline 5/2/20072  Online  Raw data : within the DAQ monitoring framework  Reconstructed data : with the HLT monitoring framework.
Trigger Software Upgrades John Baines & Tomasz Bold 1.
1 IBM Software Group ® Mastering Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with UML 2.0 Module 9: Describe the Run-time Architecture.
Latest News & Other Issues Ricardo Goncalo (LIP), David Miller (Chicago) Jet Trigger Signature Group Meeting 9/2/2015.
Artemis School On Calibration and Performance of ATLAS Detectors Jörg Stelzer / David Berge.
Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition, Chapter 3: Process-Concept.
David Adams ATLAS DIAL: Distributed Interactive Analysis of Large datasets David Adams BNL August 5, 2002 BNL OMEGA talk.
Overlap Removal and Timing Optimization Studies Nicole Carlson, Northwestern University 8/8/07 Supervisor: Tomasz Bold.
General requirements for BES III offline & EF selection software Weidong Li.
Workflows and Data Management. Workflow and DM Run3 and after: conditions m LHCb major upgrade is for Run3 (2020 horizon)! o Luminosity x 5 ( )
Pavel Nevski DDM Workshop BNL, September 27, 2006 JOB DEFINITION as a part of Production.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Using of GANGA interface for Athena applications A. Zalite / PNPI.
LHCb Configuration Database Lana Abadie, PhD student (CERN & University of Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI), LIP6.
Alignment in real-time in current detector and upgrade 6th LHCb Computing Workshop 18 November 2015 Beat Jost / Cern.
LHCbComputing Computing for the LHCb Upgrade. 2 LHCb Upgrade: goal and timescale m LHCb upgrade will be operational after LS2 (~2020) m Increase significantly.
Uses some of the slides for chapters 3 and 5 accompanying “Introduction to Parallel Computing”, Addison Wesley, 2003.
1 Critical Section Problem CIS 450 Winter 2003 Professor Jinhua Guo.
Status report for LVL2 e/  ESD/AOD Aims and constraints Tracking status Calorimetry status (Monika) Monika Wielers Ricardo Gonçalo.
Event Management. EMU Graham Heyes April Overview Background Requirements Solution Status.
ATLAS The ConditionDB is accessed by the offline reconstruction framework (ATHENA). COOLCOnditions Objects for LHC The interface is provided by COOL (COnditions.
Introduction to operating systems What is an operating system? An operating system is a program that, from a programmer’s perspective, adds a variety of.
Tool Support for Testing Classify different types of test tools according to their purpose Explain the benefits of using test tools.
SOFTWARE TESTING TRAINING TOOLS SUPPORT FOR SOFTWARE TESTING Chapter 6 immaculateres 1.
DB Implementation: MS Access Macros
CMS High Level Trigger Configuration Management
Controlling a large CPU farm using industrial tools
Applied Operating System Concepts
DB Implementation: MS Access Macros
TDC 311 Process Scheduling.
Lecture Topics: 11/1 General Operating System Concepts Processes
CSE 1020:Software Development
Process Management -Compiled for CSIT
Use Of GAUDI framework in Online Environment
CHEP La Jolla San Diego 24-28/3/2003
Presentation transcript:

Trigger input to FFReq 1

Specific Issues for Trigger The HLT trigger reconstruction is a bit different from the offline reconstruction: – The trigger uses predominantly partial event reconstruction – For most of events we do as little reco. as possible to reject the event – To save bandwidth and CPU, reconstruction is with RoI – this can be naturally turned into parallel processing of RoIs within an event – Latency is important as well as through-put – The HLT performs several hundred small reconstructions per event – for every step of every trigger chain In consequence it may be suitable for HLT to process events using parallel code  at least we should try it 2

Framework Requirements - 1 Framework must create & configure algorithms, tools and services based on configuration information Mapping of existing online offline FSM Configure( TDAQ Config Object) – Create AppMgr – AppMgr->configure() – AppMgr->initialize() – Assign EventLoopMgr(s) to threads Unconfigure() – AppMgr->finalize() – AppMgr->terminate() prepareForRun( int runNumber ) : – Fire “begin run incident” for every EventLoopMgr – Load run dependent (calibration/conditions) data Process(RobFragment* lvl1Result, RobFragment*& lvl2Result, bool& eventDecision) – EventLoopMgr->executeEvent((void*)Lvl1Result) – EventLoopMgr->Lvl2Result(vector & l2resultData, vector & status) Trigger: Menu defines chains of algorithms, their parameters and their input & output Online: config. from DB; Offline: DB, XML or python Offline: jobOptions define algorithms & their parameters Framework must implement a Finite State Model i.e. creation, configuration, initialisation, execution, finalization, termination This state model must map onto online DAQ states (configure, unconfigure, prepareForRun, Process) 3

Differences between Trigger and Offline Processing 4 I/P: 100 kHz Event Rate O/P: 1 kHz Event Rate Trigger provides rejection => Full trigger processing for only 1 in 100 events  Different steps take very different amounts of time ~10ms->~few sec  Different events take very different amounts of time ~10ms->~few sec Event … Step Trigger Offline Framework(steering) must support early termination of event processing after a processing step

Framework Requirements - 2 Framework must provide configuration information at the start of a job and provide for updates at the start of a new run and during the run. The framework must support parallel processing of different events requiring different conditions info. 5 Online: Whole conditions info loaded at start of run Updates during run at lumi-block boundary (subset of folders=>small size) Offline: Updates at any time

Trigger Configuration 6 Trigger configuration defines: – chains of algorithms – Properties of the algorithms – The input and output from each algorithm

Framework and HLT Steering Current HLT Steering: Seen from athena: the HLT Steering is an algorithm Seen from the perspective of the trigger the HLT Steering has many of the properties of a framework Questions: What commonality between HLT steering and New Framework Scheduler? What additional requirements for framework/scheduler to provide HLT Steering functionality? What additional trigger-specific functionality that must be provided on top of Framework 7 HLT Steering: Creates & configures chains of algorithms Executes algorithm chains in a data-driven Chains process Regions of Interest Decides whether chain execution should terminate (reject event) or continue until event accepted HLT Navigation: Input & reconstructed objects attached to Trigger Element Collects reco. objects associated to RoI

Requirements for Trigger Framework Supports reconstruction in RoI Supports parallel processing of RoI Provides algorithms with sub-set of reconstructed objects for RoI Supports early termination of processing (event rejection) 8

Reconstruction Currently Future? 9 Trigger Partial Event Reconstruction Independent reconstruction in RoI Offline: Full reconstruction Full event Trigger & Offline Regions of Reconstruction? Define “windows” in event around interesting features (e.g. eta-phi region or road).

Reference Material 10

Requirements & design of Current (Run-1) HLT Steering ATL-COM-DAQ (ATL-DH-EN-0010) 11

F S S S F? S F,S S Requirement Applicability to new framework

F F,S S 13

14 F F,S F F F S S obsolete F F F

15 F F F F F S F S

FFReq Mandate 1. Summarise the requirements from both HLT and reconstruction for configuring, scheduling and monitoring algorithms, and other related functionality that is felt to be relevant. These may be documented in old documents that need checking for current relevance and completeness, or they may need to be reverse engineered using the skill and experience of the group. 2. Consider how these might be accommodated in a *common* framework that supports concurrency and helps to achieve high throughput on many-core computers, such as the GaudiHive prototype. 3. In particular, consider how to minimise the need for extensions or layers to the framework specific to one or other use case, with the aim of making it straightforward to write algorithms to work well in both use cases. 4. Converge on the union of the HLT and reconstruction requirements for a future framework, and an analysis of the technical feasibility of satisfying them with a single common framework. 5. The study group is encouraged to think beyond current implementations, recognising that some decisions made a long time ago and in the context of the Gaudi framework may not be applicable in the future. 16