feat(gnovm): add benchmark system

[thehowl]

I was attempting some changes with performance ramifications and wanted to measure their impact. Eventually, they turned out to be bad performance-wise, but the code I made for measuring performance is probably still useful.

This PR sets up a basic performance measurement system for the GnoVM. It leverages Go's existing benchmarking system together with templates. It allows us to measure impact on performance using standard go tools like benchstat.

$ go test -bench . -run NONE .
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang
cpu: AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U with Radeon Graphics
BenchmarkPreprocess-16                      7737            152430 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/fib.gno_param:4-16              47374             24664 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/fib.gno_param:8-16              10000            213632 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/fib.gno_param:16-16               100          10590462 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/loop.gno-16                   2556032               509.3 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/matrix_mult.gno_param:3-16       1976            590535 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/matrix_mult.gno_param:4-16        740           1703166 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/matrix_mult.gno_param:5-16        180           6797221 ns/op
BenchmarkBenchdata/matrix_mult.gno_param:6-16         36          34389320 ns/op
BenchmarkCreateNewMachine-16                       80518             13819 ns/op
PASS
ok      github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang        16.790s

A few benchmarks are provided to show its functioning and benchmark some initial functions. loop.gno brings over the LoopyMain existing benchmark, and makes its output more useful by correlating it with b.N.

Making this to have a preliminary review and open up discussions:

• I removed go_bench_data.go, because as the name suggests it tests out things in Go and isn't actually at all related to the GnoVM.
  • Do we want to keep these benchmarks in misc/ or somewhere? Or has the information gathered from these tests already been used to act, and as such they can be removed?
• Was something similar already in the works? @deelawn @petar-dambovaliev
• Is it OK to place the benchmarking files in benchdata, or would we prefer another location?
• Would these benchmarks be automatically picked up for gnolang/benchmarks? cc/ @ajnavarro @albttx

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (988ca91) 56.42% compared to head (0215275) 56.43%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1624   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   56.42%   56.43%           
=======================================
  Files         439      439           
  Lines       66558    66558           
=======================================
+ Hits        37558    37562    +4     
+ Misses      26087    26081    -6     
- Partials     2913     2915    +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
go-1.21.x	∅ <ø> (∅)
misc	∅ <ø> (∅)
misc-_test.genstd	∅ <ø> (∅)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ajnavarro]

@thehowl They won't get picked by the benchmark charts by default, you have to create a rule first. All new benchmarks will be added afterward. There is a check on the PR template pointing to the instructions on how to do it: https://github.com/gnolang/gno/blob/master/.github/pull_request_template.md?plain=1

In any case, the Github action runner needed for the tests never was deployed AFAIK.

[zivkovicmilos]

Thank you for the benchmarks 🙏