go test runs benchmarks with increasing b.N values to find a large enough value depending on benchtime. If you run with -count > 1, it will do that every time rather than just once.
For instance, with this code:
func BenchmarkBenchmark(b *testing.B) {
start := time.Now()
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
time.Sleep(10 * time.Millisecond)
}
b.Log("single call took", time.Since(start))
}
if I run
go1.10beta2 test -bench . -benchtime 5s -count 2 bench_test.go
I get
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
BenchmarkBenchmark-4 1000 10096302 ns/op
--- BENCH: BenchmarkBenchmark-4
bench_test.go:13: single call took 10.07786ms
bench_test.go:13: single call took 1.010803756s
bench_test.go:13: single call took 10.096243342s
BenchmarkBenchmark-4 1000 10092966 ns/op
--- BENCH: BenchmarkBenchmark-4
bench_test.go:13: single call took 10.08295ms
bench_test.go:13: single call took 1.008574479s
bench_test.go:13: single call took 10.092920926s
PASS
ok command-line-arguments 22.233s
In this case, if go test had remembered the target value (1000) the first time, it would've avoided two adjustment runs the second time around and would have saved about 1s. The effect is larger when -count is higher, as is typical for people gathering multiple runs for use with benchstat.
(Side note: it would've been nice if go test had picked a smaller value than 1000 here. It took 10s when I asked for 5s.)
It's possible that the fix for #19128 (-benchsplit) will also incidentally fix this. I haven't studied the CL yet.
go test
runs benchmarks with increasing b.N values to find a large enough value depending onbenchtime
. If you run with-count
> 1, it will do that every time rather than just once.For instance, with this code:
if I run
I get
In this case, if
go test
had remembered the target value (1000) the first time, it would've avoided two adjustment runs the second time around and would have saved about 1s. The effect is larger when-count
is higher, as is typical for people gathering multiple runs for use with benchstat.(Side note: it would've been nice if
go test
had picked a smaller value than 1000 here. It took 10s when I asked for 5s.)It's possible that the fix for #19128 (
-benchsplit
) will also incidentally fix this. I haven't studied the CL yet./cc @rsc @josharian @bcmills
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: