From: "Lukáš Doktor" <ldoktor@redhat.com>
To: "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: Charles Shih <cheshi@redhat.com>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a regular upstream performance testing
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:51:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e35213ec-f4d6-d0df-92b1-1e664d5b96c3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201130132300.GD422962@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Dne 30. 11. 20 v 14:23 Stefan Hajnoczi napsal(a):
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:43:38AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:10:14AM +0100, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
>>> Ideally the community should have a way to also issue their custom builds
>>> in order to verify their patches so they can debug and address issues
>>> better than just commit to qemu-master.
>>
>> Allowing community builds certainly adds an extra dimension of complexity
>> to the problem, as you need some kind of permissions control, as you can't
>> allow any arbitrary user on the web to trigger jobs with arbitrary code,
>> as that is a significant security risk to your infra.
>
> syzkaller and other upstream CI/fuzzing systems do this, so it may be
> hard but not impossible.
>
Sure, not impossible, but could not be offered by me at this point. I can't promise anything but maybe in the future this can change, or in solution 2 someone else might resolve the perm issues and I can only assist with the setup (if needed).
>> I think I'd just suggest providing a mechanism for the user to easily spin
>> up performance test jobs on their own hardware. This could be as simple
>> as providing a docker container recipe that users can deploy on some
>> arbitrary machine of their choosing that contains the test rig. All they
>> should need do is provide a git ref, and then launching the container and
>> running jobs should be a single command. They can simply run the tests
>> twice, with and without the patch series in question.
>
> As soon as developers need to recreate an environment it becomes
> time-consuming and there is a risk that the issue won't be reproduced.
> That doesn't mean the system is useless - big regressions will still be
> tackled - but I think it's too much friction and we should aim to run
> community builds.
>
I do understand but unfortunately at this point I can not serve.
>>> The problem with those is that we can not simply use travis/gitlab/...
>>> machines for running those tests, because we are measuring in-guest
>>> actual performance.
>>
>> As mentioned above - distinguish between the CI framework, and the
>> actual test runner.
>
> Does the CI framework or the test runner handle detecting regressions
> and providing historical data? I ask because I'm not sure if GitLab CI
> provides any of this functionality or whether we'd need to write a
> custom CI tool to track and report regressions.
>
Currently I am using Jenkins which allows to publish result (number of failures and total checks) and store artifacts. I am storing the pbench json results with metadata (few MBs) and html report (also few MBs). Each html report contains a timeline of usually 14 previous builds using them as a reference.
Provided GitLab can do that similarly we should be able to see the number of tests run/failed somewhere and then browse the builds html reports. Last but not least we can fetch the pbench json results and issue another comparison cherry-picking individual results (internally I have a pipeline to do that for me, I could add a helper to do that via cmdline/container for others as well).
Regards,
Lukáš
> Stefan
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-01 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-26 8:10 Proposal for a regular upstream performance testing Lukáš Doktor
2020-11-26 8:23 ` Jason Wang
2020-11-26 9:43 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-11-26 11:29 ` Lukáš Doktor
2020-11-30 13:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-12-01 7:51 ` Lukáš Doktor [this message]
2020-11-26 10:17 ` Peter Maydell
2020-11-26 11:16 ` Lukáš Doktor
2020-11-30 13:25 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-12-01 8:05 ` Lukáš Doktor
2020-12-01 10:22 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-12-01 12:06 ` Lukáš Doktor
2020-12-01 12:35 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-12-02 8:58 ` Chenqun (kuhn)
2020-12-02 8:23 ` Chenqun (kuhn)
2022-03-21 8:46 ` Lukáš Doktor
2022-03-21 9:42 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2022-03-21 10:29 ` Lukáš Doktor
2022-03-22 15:05 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2022-03-28 6:18 ` Lukáš Doktor
2022-03-28 9:57 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2022-03-28 11:09 ` Lukáš Doktor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e35213ec-f4d6-d0df-92b1-1e664d5b96c3@redhat.com \
--to=ldoktor@redhat.com \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=cheshi@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).