From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CEFC56202 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C94207BC for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:31:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="UhLaUnyh" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 45C94207BC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57992 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiFVD-0004fo-37 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:31:55 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37372) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiFSs-0002hE-Kh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:29:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:20122) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiFSq-00067L-4U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:29:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606390167; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ihuwqCQX+5EVBMbH9X3N0XOYIiOcfIuOyZXtPF8hcn4=; b=UhLaUnyht+hNo/svD/qNQ28vizygOsSztppnw7GGEhmHv4LsIRbTyuuDVs2/G53y79AgfR t7G58m3XE1vpdiFOrd4ch78se83XzlRqqLgpp3NqDmc/XIdQlFB7Uu2XSRRRLh8vBFET79 jvrZ5laJYGeKIQ7CTCNZJn0Fe1eAWeg= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-311-LgolUThtOsKUL9-7lHTjPg-1; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:29:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: LgolUThtOsKUL9-7lHTjPg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B5899CC03; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [10.40.193.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4605D9C6; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Proposal for a regular upstream performance testing To: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= References: <3a664806-8aa3-feb4-fb30-303d303217a8@redhat.com> <20201126094338.GB1122957@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBEb2t0b3I=?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:29:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201126094338.GB1122957@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=ldoktor@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=ldoktor@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Charles Shih , Aleksandar Markovic , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Dne 26. 11. 20 v 10:43 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:10:14AM +0100, Lukáš Doktor wrote: >> How >> === >> >> This is a tough question. Ideally this should be a standalone service that >> would only notify the author of the patch that caused the change with a >> bunch of useful data so they can either address the issue or just be aware >> of this change and mark it as expected. > > We need to distinguish between the service that co-ordinates and reports > the testing, vs the service which runs the tests. > > For the service which runs the tests, it is critical that it be a standalone > bare metal machine with nothing else being run, to ensure reproducability of > results as you say. > Ack, for "solution 1" that would be me and I do have a dedicated machine (more will hopefully come). In "solution 2" that would be up to the other volunteer and there could be a combination, of course. > For the service which co-ordinates and reports test results, we ideally want > it to be integrated into our primary CI dashboard, which is GitLab CI at > this time. > At this point I don't have the resources to make this per commit, nor push. I know that in github it is possible to manually inject CI results via: curl -u $GITHUB_USER:$GITHUB_TOKEN --data "\"state\": \"$status\", \"description\": \"$description\", \"context\": \"manual/$GITHUB_USER\"" -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" "$base_url/statuses/$commit" if something like this is available in gitlab than I would be glad to start injecting my results. >> 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. > > 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. > Sure, I can bundle run-perf in a container along with some helpers to simplify the usage. >> 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. > > > >> Solution 3 >> ---------- >> >> You name it. I bet there are many other ways to perform system-wide >> performance testing. > > IMHO ideally we should use GitLab CI as the dashboard for trigger > the tests, and report results back. We should not use the GitLab > shared runners though for reasons you describe of course. Instead > register our own dedicated bare metal machine to run the perf jobs. > Cleber has already done some work in this area to provide custom > runners for some of the integration testing work. Red Hat is providing > the hardware for those runners, but I don't know what spare we have > available, if any, that could be dedicated for the performance > regression tests > Thanks for the pointer, I'll ask Cleber about the integration possibilities. > > Regards, > Daniel >