Re the doubling of bytes-allocated on T9803, that's a good point. Due to the
recent change in RSA keys, CI is recently failing to upload metrics (e.g. [1])!
I'll fix that then see if I can track down where / if the metric has really
regressed in master.
Thanks
Yes we run CI on MRs, but once merged into master CI is run again. It's only
those metrics from CI on master (post merge) that are ultimately uploaded /
used as a baseline.
OK. But they are guaranteed to be 100.0% identical to the ones discovered by
CI, aren't they? So it's just an implementation detail whether the numbers
you save are gotten from one run, or another identical one.
I'm still lost about when I can rely on the perf output of CI and when I can't.
I'm really hoping for a simple answer like:
* The CI log tells you the comparison between the preceding commit and this
one
No ifs, no buts. Simple!
Incidentally, would it be possible to output a table (in the log) like we get
from nofib-analyse. It looks like this
Program Size Allocs Runtime Elapsed TotalMem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
boyer -0.3% +5.4% +0.7% +1.0% 0.0%
cichelli -0.3% +5.9% -9.9% -9.5% 0.0%
compress2 -0.4% +9.6% +7.2% +6.4% 0.0%
constraints -0.3% +0.2% -3.0% -3.4% 0.0%
cryptarithm2 -0.3% -3.9% -2.2% -2.4% 0.0%
gamteb -0.4% +2.5% +2.8% +2.8% 0.0%
life -0.3% -2.2% -4.7% -4.9% 0.0%
lift -0.3% -0.3% -0.8% -0.5% 0.0%
linear -0.3% -0.1% -4.1% -4.5% 0.0%
mate -0.2% +1.4% -2.2% -1.9% -14.3%
parser -0.3% -2.1% -5.4% -4.6% 0.0%
puzzle -0.3% +2.1% -6.6% -6.3% 0.0%
simple -0.4% +2.8% -3.4% -3.3% -2.2%
veritas -0.1% +0.7% -0.6% -1.1% 0.0%
wheel-sieve2 -0.3% -19.2% -24.9% -24.5% -42.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min -0.4% -19.2% -24.9% -24.5% -42.9%
Max +0.1% +9.6% +7.2% +6.4% +33.3%
Geometric Mean -0.3% -0.0% -3.0% -2.9% -0.3%
Instantly comprehensible, one line per benchmark. I find I spent quite a lot
of time search manually in the log and manually building a table (or excerpts
thereof) looking like this.
I don't have an opinion about the columns, just wanting a table with one line
per benchmark, and a number of columns.
Thanks
Simon
From: David Eichmann <[email protected]>
Sent: 27 June 2020 20:39
To: Simon Peyton Jones <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Perf notes
> I thought that wasn't possible. Isn't that what CI is *for*?
Yes we run CI on MRs, but once merged into master CI is run again. It's only
those metrics from CI on master (post merge) that are ultimately uploaded /
used as a baseline.
Re the doubling of bytes-allocated on T9803, that's a good point. Due to the
recent change in RSA keys, CI is recently failing to upload metrics (e.g. [1])!
I'll fix that then see if I can track down where / if the metric has really
regressed in master.
[1] "fatal: Could not read from remote repository."
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/378487<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.haskell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2F-%2Fjobs%2F378487&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7e93b1bdba414d2b98ae08d81ad1b2e6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637288835244421907&sdata=6SpTm36gxWqp0bPp78Kz037d%2BykCs2g%2F0GGZnwXyKMs%3D&reserved=0>
--
David Eichmann, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP,
http://www.well-typed.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.well-typed.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7e93b1bdba414d2b98ae08d81ad1b2e6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637288835244431897&sdata=9%2BIEhlNYjNsc%2FopbyMryXa7dG40d79JrWeQVqtZtx8g%3D&reserved=0>
Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
118 Wymering Mansions, Wymering Road, London W9 2NF, England
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
