On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:00:25PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:42:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:16:42PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:09:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > For it to be useful in an automated test environment, it would need > > > > > > to be re-implemented from scratch with reliable recording of results > > > > > > and the ability to determine if a result is unusual or not. None of > > > > > > this exists - it's just a framework to run a couple of benchmarks > > > > > > and dump some output to stdout using the xfstests machine config > > > > > > files.... > > > > > > > > > > > > I have tried integrating other benchmarks into xfstests a while back > > > > > > (e.g. compile bench, fsmark, etc) and using the results for some > > > > > > kind of meaningful performance regression test. I rapidly came to > > > > > > the conclusion that the infrastructure was not up to scratch and > > > > > > that my simple handwritten standalone test scripts to iterate > > > > > > through benchmarks and capture results was much easier to use and > > > > > > modify than to jump through the weird bench infrastructure hoops. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, no, I don't think it's worth keeping at all. > > > > > > > > > > You've already made it clear that you feel the current bench implementation is > > > > > not worth keeping. Once a suitable replacement for the bench infrastructure > > > > > has been implemented we can remove the old one. Until then we prefer to keep > > > > > what we have in the tree. > > > > > > > > That's not how the process works > > > > > > That is exactly how the process works. You posted an RFC and Mark and the XFS > > > team at SGI walked through your patch set. Mark subsequently posted the > > > commentary in reply to your RFC. Cruft or not, the removal of a feature goes > > > through the same review process as everything else. > > > > Sure, but you need to justify your arguments for keeping something > > with evidence and logic - handwaving about wanting something is, and > > always has been, insufficient justification. That's the part of the > > process I'm talking about - that statements of need require > > evidence, especially when you agreed to the removal at LSF in San > > Fransisco a few months ago. My arguments at the time were: > > > > a) nobody is actually using it, > > b) it has effectively been unmaintained since 2003 > > c) it has no regression analysis or detection capability > > d) it shares *very little* of xfstests > > e) it gets in the way of cleaning up xfstests > > f) there are far better workload generators that are being > > actively maintained. > > > > And AFAIA, nothing has changed in the past few months. > > "In this case, SGI would like to keep the benchmark capability in xfstests in > order have a better chance of catching performance regressions." There has > been a been performance regression in the past few months (and there will be > more in the future), we have had performance regressions internally too, and > this has brought the value of having benchmarks in xfstests into sharp focus. I heard you the first time - it didn't answer the first questions I asked, Repeating it doesn't answer the second set of questions, either, which could be answered with "yes" or "no". That is: are you using bench *right now* for perforamnce regression testing? The information I'm after is whether removing it breaks your current test environment. Given you are suggesting moving it out of the way rather than removal, I think the answer is "no" but I'd like a yes or no confirming that. > > OK, so moving it to revision history will be just fine until patches > > are written some time in the future to make it work again in a > > subdirectory. > > > > But before anything major gets done with bench, there needs to be a > > coherent development plan produced. > > Doesn't removing bench fall in to the category 'major'? Not really, because it's all of 5 minutes work in a larger project. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is and so I need to communicate and develop a plan.... > Did you develop a > coherent development plan on how to replace it with something better? Yes, I communicated and developed a plan, and got agreement on it, too. The plan was to remove it as there are other benchmark/test suites better suited to performance regression testing than xfstests. We discussed this and a consensus was reached on this at LSF. Everything in the patchset is in my notes from the LSF discussion.... > > Then, once we have an idea of what is going to be done, the white > > elephant can then be addressed: is xfstests the right place for this > > functionality? > > I think it is the perfect place. xfstests already has a wide following with > linux filesystems folks, so if we get bench cleaned up everyone will have > access to the same suite automatically. I'd really like the focus to stay on > improving xfstests as opposed to some other suite, and I prefer not to be doing > SGI internal-only test suites for benchmarking and testing where possible. There's no reason why a new performance regression suite would have to be SGI internal. If you want it to be part of xfstests so the work is put into a public GPL project, then I think your motivation for using/keeping bench is all wrong.... Anyway, let's leave it there. Gather requirements (e.g. put out a request for discussion on linux-fsdevel), research existing tools that can do the job, develop a plan, then we can discuss how best ot proceed. > > FWIW, this is the sort of reporting that a performance regression > > test suite should produce: > > > > http://lists.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/3.2/ > > Yeah, that's really nice. Do you happen to know what tool created it? IIRC, a relatively simple set of scripts around the outside of ffsb, lockstat, oprofile and gnuplot. You should probably ask Eric if he can share them... > > > Indeed, why start with bench when you can start with something far > > more advanced.... > > I understand that bench is bitrotted, but it still has some value even today. > Phil has agreed to take this on as a project so the bitrot will be addressed. > You have good points about needing a better plan in this area. But we should > come up with a plan before taking the major step of removing benchmarking from > xfstests entirely. That's not handwaving, it's good sense. ;) > > Lets stay focused on improving xfstests... Yep, I'm trying to do that by removing peripheral, non-core functionality. ;) Really, it makes no difference to me whether I remove bench or move it to a sub-directory in a broken state. If you are really that set on it being useful, I'll move it to another directory (say "broken-bench-do-not-sit-down-here" :) and leave it in a busted state. If it hasn't been fixed 6 months later, I'll post patches to remove it again.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
