I looked at the log but I could not figure what is causing the timeout
because the gradle scan links are missing. I sampled a few of the
successful jobs, It seems like python 3.7 and python 2 are running 3 tests
in serial {interactive, py37cython, py37gcp} and {docs, py27cython,
py27gcp} respectively. These two versions are pushing the total time
because other variants are now only running {cython, gcp} versions.

I suggest breaking up docs, and interactive into 2 separate suites of their
own. docs is actually faster than interactive,just separating that out to a
new suite might help.

Interactive was recently added
(https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9741). +Ning
Kang <ni...@google.com> could you separate interactive to new suite?

Ahmet

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:09 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:

> Just saw another 2-hour timeout:
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Python_Commit/9440/ , so
> perhaps we're not out of the woods yet (though in general things have
> been a lot better).
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:52 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > GCP tests are already on separate locations. IO related tests are under
> /sdks/python/apache_beam/io/gcp and Dataflow related tests are under
> sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/dataflow. It should be a matter of changing
> gradle files to run either one of the base tests or GCP tests depending on
> the types of changes. I do not expect this to have any material impact on
> the precommit times because these two test suites take about exactly the
> same time to complete.
> >
> > #9985 is merged now. Precommit times on master branch dropped to ~1h 20
> for the last 5 runs.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM David Cavazos <dcava...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 to moving the GCP tests outside of core. If there are issues that
> only show up on GCP tests but not in core, it might be an indication that
> there needs to be another test in core covering that, but I think that
> should be pretty rare.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:33 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 to moving forward with this
> >>>
> >>> Could we move GCP tests outside the core? Then only code changes
> touches/affecting GCP would cause them to run in precommit. Could still run
> them in postcommit in their own suite. If the core has reasonably stable
> abstractions that the connectors are built on, this should not change
> coverage much.
> >>>
> >>> Kenn
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:55 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> PR for the proposed change: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9985
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:09 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1, this seems like a good step with a clear win.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:06 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Python precommits are still timing out on #9925. I am guessing
> that means this change would not be enough.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > I am proposing cutting down the number of test variants we run in
> precommits. Currently for each version we ran the following variants
> serially:
> >>>>>> > - base: Runs all unit tests with tox
> >>>>>> > - Cython: Installs cython and runs all unit tests as base
> version. The original purpose was to ensure that tests pass with or without
> cython. There is probably a huge overlap with base. (IIRC only a few coders
> have different slow vs fast tests.)
> >>>>>> > - GCP: Installs GCP dependencies and tests all base + additional
> gcp specific tests. The original purpose was to ensure that GCP is an
> optional component and all non-GCP tests still works without GCP components.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > We can reduce the list to cython + GCP tests only. This will
> cover the same group of tests and will check that tests pass with or
> without cython or GCP dependencies. This could reduce the precommit time by
> ~30 minutes.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > What do you think?
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Ahmet
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9925
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:24 AM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > 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
>

Reply via email to