Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] gitlab-ci: Add ccache in $PATH and display statistics

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4636 bytes --]

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:52:13PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:27:26PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 5/21/21 1:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:02:51PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >> On 21/05/2021 12.50, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:48:21PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >>>> On 20/05/2021 13.27, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > >>>>> +Stefan/Daniel
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 5/20/21 10:02 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 19/05/2021 20.45, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > >>>>>>> If a runner has ccache installed, use it and display statistics
> > >>>>>>> at the end of the build.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>     .gitlab-ci.d/buildtest-template.yml | 5 +++++
> > >>>>>>>     1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest-template.yml
> > >>>>>>> b/.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest-template.yml
> > >>>>>>> index f284d7a0eec..a625c697d3b 100644
> > >>>>>>> --- a/.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest-template.yml
> > >>>>>>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest-template.yml
> > >>>>>>> @@ -6,13 +6,18 @@
> > >>>>>>>           then
> > >>>>>>>             JOBS=$(sysctl -n hw.ncpu)
> > >>>>>>>             MAKE=gmake
> > >>>>>>> +        PATH=/usr/local/libexec/ccache:$PATH
> > >>>>>>>             ;
> > >>>>>>>           else
> > >>>>>>>             JOBS=$(expr $(nproc) + 1)
> > >>>>>>>             MAKE=make
> > >>>>>>> +        PATH=/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/lib64/ccache:$PATH
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That does not make sense for the shared runners yet. We first need
> > >>>>>> something to enable the caching there - see my series "Use ccache in the
> > >>>>>> gitlab-CI" from April (which is currently stalled unfortunately).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> TL;DR: I don't think we should restrict our templates to shared runners.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm certainly not voting for restricting ourselves to only use shared
> > >>>> runners here - but my concern is that this actually *slows* down the shared
> > >>>> runners even more! (sorry, I should have elaborated on that in my previous
> > >>>> mail already)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> When I was experimenting with ccache in the shared runners, I saw that the
> > >>>> jobs are running even slower with ccache enabled as long as the cache is not
> > >>>> populated yet. You only get a speedup afterwards. So if you add this now
> > >>>> without also adding the possibility to store the cache persistently, the
> > >>>> shared runners will try to populate the cache each time just to throw away
> > >>>> the results afterwards again. Thus all the shared runners only get slower
> > >>>> without any real benefit here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thus we either need to get ccache working properly for the shared runners
> > >>>> first, or you have to think of a different way of enabling ccache for the
> > >>>> non-shared runners, so that it does not affect the shared runners
> > >>>> negatively.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there anything functional holding up your previous full cccache support
> > >>> series from last month ? Or is it just lack of reviews ?
> > >>
> > >> It's basically the problems mentioned in the cover letter and Stefan's
> > >> comment here:
> > >>
> > >>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-04/msg02219.html
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure I understand why Stefan thinks gitlab's caching doesn't
> > > benefit ccache. We add ccache for libvirt GitLab CI, and AFAIR it
> > > sped up our builds significantly.
> > 
> > I think Stefan is referring to a comment I made, when using both
> > shared runners and dedicated runners (what I'm currently testing)
> > various jobs are stuck transferring artifacts/cache {FROM, TO}
> > {shared, dedicated} runners at the same time, which is sub-optimal
> > because it saturate the dedicated runner network link.
> 
> I think we're over thinking things a bit too much and worrying about
> scenarios that we're not actually hitting that frequently today, and
> delaying the benefit for everyone.

Thomas' original email indicated using ccache with QEMU isn't
necessarily a win:

  Additionally, the jobs are sometimes running even slower, e.g. if the
  cache has not been populated yet or if there are a lot of cache
  misses,

Let's measure the time taken both on first run and on a subsequent run.
This information can be included in the patch series cover letter so we
know ccache performance has been measured and it works well.

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]