On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote:

> This would only affect pixel tests, which are still off by default on
> mac, right?


It also includes prefs about font sizes, smoothing, etc, which has shown in
the past to change the layout and hence the text dumps.

TVL


>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Thomas Van Lenten 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> fyi -Some failures will happen on the Macs because test_shell
>> sets/restores user settings on startup/shutdown, so having more then one
>> running can cause things to fail as one exits changing state on another
>> that's running.  It's on my list to move into a helper app so it can be done
>> around the whole setup instead, it just hasn't bubble up in the priority
>> list yet.
>>
>> TVL
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Pam Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:57 PM, David Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> run_webkit_test.sh now runs cpus+1 test_shells for Release builds.
>>>>> Please keep an eye out over the next couple days for test flakyness that 
>>>>> may
>>>>> have resulted from this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice job!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Release tests on a dual core now take about half the time they used to.
>>>>> There's still a lot of room for improvement and I'm a bit burnt out on 
>>>>> this
>>>>> stuff, so if anyone is willing to help that would be much appreciated. 
>>>>> Here
>>>>> are the remaining obvious things we could do to make a significant
>>>>> performance improvement:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Test and turn on parallelizing for Debug builds
>>>>> 2. Get 4 or 8 core webkit buildbots
>>>>> 3. Shard LayoutTests/fast and LayoutTests/http. Right now, in order to
>>>>> reduce test flakiness, we bucket tests by directory and run all those 
>>>>> tests
>>>>> in the same process (thanks to dlevin for this idea!). The problem is that
>>>>> we're left with two very large buckets that can be further broken down. 
>>>>> The
>>>>> work of breaking them down further is trivial (just add the directory 
>>>>> names
>>>>> to a list in run_webkit_tests.py), the bigger problem is that some 
>>>>> flakiness
>>>>> starts to appear in the fast/http tests when we break them down further. 
>>>>> So,
>>>>> we need people to figure out what the source of the flakiness is and deal
>>>>> with it appropriately.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For #3, an alternative may be to sort "http" tests to be first and don't
>>>> break it down further. ("http" is less than one quarter of the time on OSX
>>>> at least, so you can still scale up to quad core.)  Also, I think fast (and
>>>> dom) can be broken down into the 1st sub dir level without increased
>>>> flakiness.
>>>>
>>>> So this may be an easy gain without having to figure out lots of test
>>>> depedencies (which can be a bit painful).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On that note, though, it would be amazing if someone wanted to figure out
>>> the interdependencies. We have three run_webkit_tests otpions available to
>>> help:  --randomize-order, which runs the tests in a random
>>> order;--run-singly, which launches a fresh test_shell for each test; and
>>> --num-test-shells, which sets how many test_shell threads to run at once.
>>> It'll be time-consuming (--run-singly is especially slow), and there will be
>>> some work involved in comparing the results to figure out which test(s) are
>>> causing problems, but it would be a valuable thing. And no programing
>>> knowledge required.
>>>
>>> - Pam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  If we did all of the above, I expect we would see at least another
>>>>> factor of two performance improvement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if you want to help out with any of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ojan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to