Skip to content
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

Audit Mutect2/HC FeatureCache access patterns #5148

Closed
cmnbroad opened this issue Aug 29, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Audit Mutect2/HC FeatureCache access patterns #5148

cmnbroad opened this issue Aug 29, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@cmnbroad
Copy link
Collaborator

cmnbroad commented Aug 29, 2018

I ran the full test suite using a branch that throws if a tool ever tries to query the FeatureCache using a query interval that is earlier than, but on the same contig as, the one currently cached. Several tests failed, including a few of the Mutect2/HC ones:

Mutect2IntegrationTest.testContaminationFilter
Mutect2IntegrationTest.testDreamTumorNormal
Mutect2IntegrationTest.testGivenAllelesMode
Mutect2IntegrationTest.testPon
Mutect2IntegrationTest.testTumorOnly
HaplotypeCallerIntegrationTest.testGenotypeGivenAllelesMode

The FeatureCache assumes that queries are always increasing along a contig; the failures in this branch indicate that the caller is attempting to back up and re-query territory that has already been cached and then trimmed.

I didn't track down all of these cases, but the general pattern appears to be that active region determination results in initial caching and trimming, and then the same/similar territory is traversed again during calling, resulting in cache misses. It happens pretty frequently when running M2 tests, at least for pon and germline resource inputs; we should investigate how much a better caching strategy would help performance. If it would, we'd need #4902 at a mimimum in order to use a alternate cache strategy.

@cmnbroad cmnbroad changed the title Audit Mutect2 FeatureCache access patterns Audit Mutect2/HC FeatureCache access patterns Aug 29, 2018
@cmnbroad
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing in favor of #5895.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant