Skip to content

Revert #3059: which generates non-bootstrapped for bootstrapped #3124

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 14, 2017

Conversation

liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor

Revert #3059: which generates non-bootstrapped for bootstrapped.

There's some bug with the latest version of the sbt-pack plugin.

There's some bug with the latest version of the sbt-pack plugin.
@allanrenucci
Copy link
Contributor

What is the reason for reverting this change? We will need a new docker image for the CI because this PR change a plugin version

@nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor

The generated jar contained the non-bootstrapped version :(

@nicolasstucki nicolasstucki self-requested a review September 14, 2017 13:24
@nicolasstucki nicolasstucki merged commit 58ca93d into scala:master Sep 14, 2017
@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

@allanrenucci is it possible to have some mapping of type system between the host OS and the docker, so that we don't need to build a new docker image when we change plugins or libraries.

@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

test performance please

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

performance test scheduled: 1 job(s) in queue, 1 running.

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

Performance test finished successfully:

Visit http://dotty-bench.epfl.ch/3124 to see the changes.

Benchmarks is based on merge(s) with master

@nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor

test performance please

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

performance test scheduled: 1 job(s) in queue, 0 running.

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

Performance test finished successfully:

Visit http://dotty-bench.epfl.ch/3124 to see the changes.

Benchmarks is based on merge(s) with master

@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now we have the setting measure "tests/implicitNums.scala" 100 tests/implicitNums.scala.

test performance please

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

performance test scheduled: 2 job(s) in queue, 0 running.

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

performance test failed:

[check /data/workspace/bench/logs/pull-3124-09-14-18.47.out for more information]

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

Performance test finished successfully:

Visit http://dotty-bench.epfl.ch/3124 to see the changes.

Benchmarks is based on merge(s) with master

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Sep 14, 2017

Exhaustivity T and V drop 200ms of runtime; I wonder why those tests in particular show such a big difference.

@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

T and V are quite noisy, maybe because we need more warmups. This test is intended to check if more warmups can bring down the number of mini-tests. We set 100 warmups for implicit cache II, but it seems to have no effect -- the result is the same as 10 warmups + 20 runs.

@retronym
Copy link
Member

JMH has a handy profiler, -prof hs_comp, that logs JIT compiler activity after each iteration. Observing the output after each measurement iteration to ensure that the overall time spent compiling is no longer rapidly growing helps to validate the chosen warmup duration.

You can disable your warmup altogether to see the output of this profiler periodically after each iteration.

Here's an example of 200s of execution of of a scalac benchmark: https://gist.github.com/109d3b6a3b72c9d87967f62985b78df9

Notice that in steady state, the delta of compiler.totalTime is low (~0.5s compile time per 10s measurement iteration), and the delta of compiler.totalCompiles is low (<100 methods).

In addition to selecting a warmup duration, selecting the number of forks is important. We tend to use 3, which I think is even too low and probably our biggest cause of jitter.

@nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @retronym I will have a look.

@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

test performance please

@dottybot
Copy link
Member

performance test scheduled: 1 job(s) in queue, 0 running.

@liufengyun liufengyun deleted the revert-3059 branch September 15, 2017 19:32
@dottybot
Copy link
Member

Performance test finished successfully:

Visit http://dotty-bench.epfl.ch/3124 to see the changes.

Benchmarks is based on merge(s) with master

@allanrenucci allanrenucci mentioned this pull request Dec 21, 2017
8 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants