-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 840
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Benchmark workflows #5842
Add Benchmark workflows #5842
Conversation
These workflows run a few JMH benchmarks and publish the results to a `benchmarks` branch. The expectation is that the branch would be published via github pages. `benchmark-tags.yml` is intended to run manually as needed to populate benchmark data from historical versions. This works because the benchmarks being run have been in place for a long time. If we needed a new benchmark, methodologies would need to change. Note: this won't actually work until the org-level self-hosted runner is configured to allow these workflows.
Codecov ReportAll modified lines are covered by tests ✅ see 3 files with indirect coverage changes 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!. |
nice! can you run it on your fork (using normal github runner) and link to the gh-pages branch so we can see what the report looks like? |
Here's what it looks like for now: |
with: | ||
tool: 'jmh' | ||
output-file-path: sdk/trace/build/jmh-result.json | ||
gh-pages-branch: benchmarks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will do!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you open a tracking issue and describe the related followup work you anticipate? This looks like the good start of a solution, but IMO has some follow on work:
- Need to decide which benchmarks and why
- Need to have some sort of way to abstract the benchmarks away such that we can reliably run them for old (within reason) and new versions
- Need to setup the github.io publishing, link to it from the appropriate places, and describe the methodology (why the benchmarks are selected and how users should think about them)
- name: Run Benchmark | ||
run: | | ||
cd sdk/trace/build | ||
java -jar libs/opentelemetry-sdk-trace-*-jmh.jar -rf json SpanBenchmark SpanPipelineBenchmark ExporterBenchmark |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the advantage of this over ./gradlew :sdk:trace:jmh -PjmhIncludeSingleClass=SpanBenchmark
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't try that approach. This seems equivalent to me.
on: | ||
push: | ||
branches: [ main ] | ||
workflow_dispatch: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of having two workflow files (one for backfilling and one for updates to main), can we have a single workflow which takes an optional tag as an argument, defaulting to use the main branch if not set?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can, but I worry that would give the impression that it would work on any tag when it can only work with 1.6+. Is this important to you? It seems that would be a lot more work involved in backfilling all the versions I enumerated here. We don't even need to keep this long term. It can be deleted after a successful run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not important and we can iterate. If it turns out that we want to backfill performance runs on a recurring basis, let's consider refactoring some sort reusuable work flow (i.e. reusable-markdown-link-check.yml).
@jack-berg This is part of a broader cross-language effort. This isn't intended as the final state. Eventually we hope to have these results published on the otel docs site too, similar to what the collector group is doing. See the following references:
This test selection was used because it already existed and didn't require any changes. The baseline tests should be the ones defined in the specification repo.
I think that's a reasonable idea and can be considered independently from this PR, especially when new benchmarks are created that don't have the history the current ones do. My primary intention for this effort was to establish the benchmarking pipeline with tests running in a stable environment and reports being published, not to be opinionated on which specific tests are being run.
I can't iterate on this until the benchmarks branch is created and the workflows are in place. |
Another important point to add: |
Can you open a tracking issue for anything you plan on iterating on in this repo? Can either be a single issue with a bulleted list of items, or individual issues. I want to get feel for what this would look like. |
@jack-berg done: #5857 |
Runner permissions granted: open-telemetry/community#1699 |
These workflows run a few JMH benchmarks and publish the results to a
benchmarks
branch. The expectation is that the branch would be published via github pages.benchmark-tags.yml
is intended to run manually as needed to populate benchmark data from historical versions. This works because the benchmarks being run have been in place for a long time. If we needed a new benchmark, methodologies would need to change.In order for this to work, a new github pages branch needs to be created (assuming
benchmarks
):git checkout --orphan benchmarks git commit --allow-empty -m "Init" git push origin benchmarks
(not tested, but something to this effect.)
Note: this won't actually work until the org-level self-hosted runner is configured to allow these workflows.