----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#review156761 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (lines 62 - 67) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227040> Please specify the time for `@Warmup` and `@Iterations`. My google skill have just failed me to quickly find out what's the current default. Example (used in in our other benchmarks): ``` @BenchmarkMode(Mode.Throughput) @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.SECONDS) @Warmup(iterations = 1, time = 10, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS) @Measurement(iterations = 5, time = 5, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS) @Fork(1) @State(Scope.Thread) ``` src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (line 97) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227037> `void` benchmarks are an anti-pattern and strongly discouraged. The JVM might decide to perform unexpected optimizations. src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (lines 118 - 123) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227036> Same as above. Please specify the time for `@Warmup` and `@Iterations`. src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (line 154) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227038> Same as above, `void` benchmarks are an anti-pattern. - Stephan Erb On Nov. 23, 2016, 3:47 a.m., Zameer Manji wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 23, 2016, 3:47 a.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Stephan Erb. > > > Bugs: AURORA-1823 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1823 > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > `StateManagerImpl` is in the middle of every task state transition in the > scheduler. Performance improvements here could yield scheduling throughput > improvements across the board. This adds benchmarks for the two bulk APIs, > inserting pending tasks and deleting tasks. Sample output: > > ```` > Benchmark (numPendingTasks) > (numTasksToDelete) Mode Cnt Score Error Units > StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run N/A > 1000 thrpt 10 2.510 ± 0.557 ops/s > StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run N/A > 10000 thrpt 10 0.272 ± 0.030 ops/s > StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run N/A > 50000 thrpt 10 0.053 ± 0.011 ops/s > StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run 1000 > N/A thrpt 10 2.446 ± 0.698 ops/s > StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run 10000 > N/A thrpt 10 0.246 ± 0.018 ops/s > StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run 50000 > N/A thrpt 10 0.041 ± 0.006 ops/s > ```` > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Zameer Manji > >
