Re: Continuous Benchmarking

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2025, 16:33 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpljz2dk5.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Z6CSc_vyGkn-ozUH@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> ... implement continuous benchmarking for the Git project. The intent is to
> have regular (daily) benchmarking runs against Git's `master` and `next`
> branches to be able to spot any performance regressions before they make
> it into the next release.

This is great.

Show 40 quoted lines

> I have started with a relatively simple setup:
>
>   - I have started collection benchmarks that I myself do regularly [1].
>     These benchmarks are built on hyperfine and are thus not part of the
>     Git repository itself.
>
>   - GitLab CI runs on a nightly basis, executing a subset of these
>     benchmarks [2].
>
>   - Results are uploaded with a hyperfine adaptor to Bencher and are
>     summarized in dashboards.
>
> This at least gives us some visibility in severe performance outliers,
> whether these are improvements or regressions. Some statistics are
> applied on this data to automatically generate alerts when things are
> significantly changing.
>
> The setup is of course not perfect. It's built on top of CI jobs, which
> are by their very nature not really performing consistent. The scripts
> are hosted outside of Git. And I'm the only one running this.
>
> So I wonder whether there is a wider interest in the Git community to
> have this infrastructure part of the Git project itself. This may
> include steps like the following:
>
>   - Extending our performance tests we have in "t/perf" to cover more
>     benchmarks.
>
>   - Writing an adaptor that is able to upload the data generated from
>     our perf scripts to Bencher.
>
>   - Setting up proper infrastructure to do the benchmarking. We may for
>     now also continue to use GitLab CI, but as said they are quite noisy
>     overall. Dedicated servers would help here.
>
>   - Sending alerts to the Git mailing list.
>
> I'm happy to hear your thoughts on this. Any ideas are welcome,
> including "we're not interested at all". In that case, we'd simply
> continue to maintain the setup ourselves at GitLab.

Elsewhere Peff was talking about his adventure with Coverty running on 'next'. The more eyes and tools on the topics before they hit 'master', the less chance we have to scramble just before the release.