I don't have the bandwidth right now to tackle this. Feel free to take it. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:16 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> The Python SDK does as well. These calls are coming from > to_runner_api, is_stateful_dofn, and validate_stateful_dofn which are > invoked once per pipene or bundle. They are, however, surprisingly > expensive. Even memoizing across those three calls should save a > significant amount of time. Udi, did you want to tackle this? > > Looking at the profile, Pipeline.to_runner_api() is being called 30 > times in this test, and [Applied]PTransform.to_fn_api being called > 3111 times, so that in itself might be interesting to investigate. > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:26 AM Robert Burke <rob...@frantil.com> wrote: > > > > As does the Go SDK. Invokers are memoized and when possible code is > generated to avoid reflection. > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 6:46 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> Noting for the benefit of the thread archive in case someone goes > digging and wonders if this affects other SDKs: the Java SDK memoizes > DoFnSignatures and generated DoFnInvoker classes. > >> > >> Kenn > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 6:59 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Re: #9283 slowing down tests, ideas for slowness: > >>> 1. I added a lot of test cases, some with locally run pipelines. > >>> 2. The PR somehow changed how coders are selected, and now we're using > less efficient ones. > >>> 3. New dependency funcsigs is slowing things down? (py2 only) > >>> > >>> I ran "pytest -k PipelineAnalyzerTest --profile-svg" on 2.7 and 3.7 > and got these cool graphs (attached). > >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments takes 56.66% of CPU time (IIUC), > gets called ~230k times > >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 30.88%, gets called ~200k times > >>> > >>> After memoization of get_function_args_defaults: > >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 20.02% > >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 8.11% > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:38 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> *not deciles, but 9-percentiles : ) > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:31 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I've ran the tests in Python 2 (without cython), and used a utility > to track runtime for each test method. I found some of the following things: > >>>>> - Total test methods run: 2665 > >>>>> - Total test runtime: 990 seconds > >>>>> - Deciles of time spent: > >>>>> - 1949 tests run in the first 9% of time > >>>>> - 173 in the 9-18% rang3e > >>>>> - 130 in the 18-27% range > >>>>> - 95 in the 27-36% range > >>>>> - 77 > >>>>> - 66 > >>>>> - 55 > >>>>> - 46 > >>>>> - 37 > >>>>> - 24 > >>>>> - 13 tests run in the last 9% of time. This represents about 1 > minute and a half. > >>>>> > >>>>> We may be able to look at the slowest X tests, and get gradual > improvements from there. Although it seems .. not dramatic ones : ) > >>>>> > >>>>> FWIW I uploaded the results here: > https://storage.googleapis.com/apache-beam-website-pull-requests/python-tests/nosetimes.json > >>>>> > >>>>> The slowest 13 tests were: > >>>>> > >>>>> > [('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_basic', > >>>>> 5.253582000732422), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_wordcount', > >>>>> 7.907713890075684), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.gcp.bigquery_test.PipelineBasedStreamingInsertTest.test_failure_has_same_insert_ids', > >>>>> 5.237942934036255), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.transforms.combiners_test.CombineTest.test_global_sample', > >>>>> 5.563946008682251), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.sideinputs_test.EmulatedCollectionsTest.test_large_iterable_values', > >>>>> 5.680700063705444), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.parquetio_test.TestParquet.test_sink_transform_multiple_row_group', > >>>>> 6.111238956451416), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.statesampler_test.StateSamplerTest.test_basic_sampler', > >>>>> 6.007534980773926), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_basic', > >>>>> 13.993916988372803), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_read_cache_expansion', > >>>>> 6.3383049964904785), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_word_count', > >>>>> 9.157485008239746), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.portability.portable_runner_test.PortableRunnerTestWithSubprocesses.test_pardo_side_and_main_outputs', > >>>>> 5.191173076629639), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.vcfio_test.VcfSourceTest.test_pipeline_read_file_pattern_large', > >>>>> 6.2221620082855225), > >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.fileio_test.WriteFilesTest.test_streaming_complex_timing', > >>>>> 7.7187910079956055)] > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have written https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9910 to reduce > FnApiRunnerTest variations. > >>>>>> I'm not in a rush to merge, but rather happy to start a discussion. > >>>>>> I'll also try to figure out if there are other tests slowing down > the suite significantly. > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> -P. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 7:41 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, Brian. > >>>>>>> +Udi Meiri > >>>>>>> As next step, it would be good to know whether slowdown is caused > by tests in this PR, or its effect on other tests, and to confirm that only > Python 2 codepaths were affected. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:35 PM Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I did a bisect based on the runtime of `./gradlew > :sdks:python:test-suites:tox:py2:testPy2Gcp` around the commits between 9/1 > and 9/15 to see if I could find the source of the spike that happened > around 9/6. It looks like it was due to PR#9283 [1]. I thought maybe this > search would reveal some mis-guided configuration change, but as far as I > can tell 9283 just added a well-tested feature. I don't think there's > anything to learn from that... I just wanted to circle back about it in > case others are curious about that spike. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm +1 on bumping some FnApiRunner configurations. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Brian > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9283 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:49 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to remove some of the extra FnApiRunner > configurations. Perhaps some of the multiworkers and some of the grpc > versions? > >>>>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>>>> -P. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:27 PM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It looks like fn_api_runner_test.py is quite expensive, taking > 10-15+ > >>>>>>>>>> minutes on each version of Python. This test consists of a base > class > >>>>>>>>>> that is basically a validates runner suite, and is then run in > several > >>>>>>>>>> configurations, many more of which (including some expensive > ones) > >>>>>>>>>> have been added lately. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTest(unittest.TestCase): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpc(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcMultiThreaded(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithDisabledCaching(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeat(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeatAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced we need to run all of these permutations, or > at > >>>>>>>>>> least not all tests in all permutations. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:57 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev > >>>>>>>>>> <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > I took another look at this and precommit ITs are already > running in parallel, albeit in the same suite. However it appears Python > precommits became slower, especially Python 2 precommits [35 min per suite > x 3 suites], see [1]. Not sure yet what caused the increase, but precommits > used to be faster. Perhaps we have added a slow test or a lot of new tests. > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > [1] > https://scans.gradle.com/s/jvcw5fpqfc64k/timeline?task=ancsbov425524 > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> Ack. Separating precommit ITs to a different suite sounds > good. Anyone is interested in doing that? > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:41 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>> This should not increase the queue time substantially, > since precommit ITs are running sequentially with precommit tests, unlike > multiple precommit tests which run in parallel to each other. > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>> The precommit ITs we run are batch and streaming wordcount > tests on Py2 and one Py3 version, so it's not a lot of tests. > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:07 PM Ahmet Altay < > al...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> +1 to separating ITs from precommit. Downside would be, > when Chad tried to do something similar [1] it was noted that the total > time to run all precommit tests would increase and also potentially > increase the queue time. > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative, we could run a smaller set of IT > tests in precommits and run the whole suite as part of post commit tests. > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9642 > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:15 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> One improvement could be move to Precommit IT tests into > a separate suite from precommit tests, and run it in parallel. > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:41 AM Brian Hulette < > bhule...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Python Precommits are taking quite a while now [1]. Just > visually it looks like the average length is 1.5h or so, but it spikes up > to 2h. I've had several precommit runs get aborted due to the 2 hour limit. > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like there was a spike up above 1h back on 9/6 > and the duration has been steadily rising since then. Is there anything we > can do about this? > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Brian > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [1] > http://104.154.241.245/d/_TNndF2iz/pre-commit-test-latency?orgId=1&from=now-90d&to=now&fullscreen&panelId=4 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
