compare.py: sort the results #1168
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dmah42
reviewed
Jun 3, 2021
Currently, the tooling just keeps the whatever benchmark order that was present, and this is fine nowadays, but once the benchmarks will be optionally run interleaved, that will be rather suboptimal. So, now that i have introduced family index and per-family instance index, we can define an order for the benchmarks, and sort them accordingly. There is a caveat with aggregates, we assume that they are in-order, and hopefully we won't mess that order up..
LebedevRI
force-pushed
the
compare-py-sorting
branch
from
8d70c3b
to
b414e7f
Compare
dmah42
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2021
Currently, the tooling just keeps the whatever benchmark order that was present, and this is fine nowadays, but once the benchmarks will be optionally run interleaved, that will be rather suboptimal. So, now that i have introduced family index and per-family instance index, we can define an order for the benchmarks, and sort them accordingly. There is a caveat with aggregates, we assume that they are in-order, and hopefully we won't mess that order up..
LebedevRI
added a commit
to LebedevRI/benchmark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2021
…le#1051) Inspired by the original implementation by Hai Huang @haih-g from google#1105. The original implementation had design deficiencies that weren't really addressable without redesign, so it was reverted. In essence, the original implementation consisted of two separateable parts: * reducing the amount time each repetition is run for, and symmetrically increasing repetition count * running the repetitions in random order While it worked fine for the usual case, it broke down when user would specify repetitions (it would completely ignore that request), or specified per-repetition min time (while it would still adjust the repetition count, it would not adjust the per-repetition time, leading to much greater run times) Here, like i was originally suggesting in the original review, i'm separating the features, and only dealing with a single one - running repetitions in random order. Now that the runs/repetitions are no longer in-order, the tooling may wish to sort the output, and indeed `compare.py` has been updated to do that: google#1168.
LebedevRI
added a commit
to LebedevRI/benchmark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2021
…le#1051) Inspired by the original implementation by Hai Huang @haih-g from google#1105. The original implementation had design deficiencies that weren't really addressable without redesign, so it was reverted. In essence, the original implementation consisted of two separateable parts: * reducing the amount time each repetition is run for, and symmetrically increasing repetition count * running the repetitions in random order While it worked fine for the usual case, it broke down when user would specify repetitions (it would completely ignore that request), or specified per-repetition min time (while it would still adjust the repetition count, it would not adjust the per-repetition time, leading to much greater run times) Here, like i was originally suggesting in the original review, i'm separating the features, and only dealing with a single one - running repetitions in random order. Now that the runs/repetitions are no longer in-order, the tooling may wish to sort the output, and indeed `compare.py` has been updated to do that: google#1168.
LebedevRI
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2021
… (#1163) Inspired by the original implementation by Hai Huang @haih-g from #1105. The original implementation had design deficiencies that weren't really addressable without redesign, so it was reverted. In essence, the original implementation consisted of two separateable parts: * reducing the amount time each repetition is run for, and symmetrically increasing repetition count * running the repetitions in random order While it worked fine for the usual case, it broke down when user would specify repetitions (it would completely ignore that request), or specified per-repetition min time (while it would still adjust the repetition count, it would not adjust the per-repetition time, leading to much greater run times) Here, like i was originally suggesting in the original review, i'm separating the features, and only dealing with a single one - running repetitions in random order. Now that the runs/repetitions are no longer in-order, the tooling may wish to sort the output, and indeed `compare.py` has been updated to do that: #1168.
vincenzopalazzo
pushed a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/benchmark
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2022
Currently, the tooling just keeps the whatever benchmark order that was present, and this is fine nowadays, but once the benchmarks will be optionally run interleaved, that will be rather suboptimal. So, now that i have introduced family index and per-family instance index, we can define an order for the benchmarks, and sort them accordingly. There is a caveat with aggregates, we assume that they are in-order, and hopefully we won't mess that order up..
vincenzopalazzo
pushed a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/benchmark
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2022
…le#1051) (google#1163) Inspired by the original implementation by Hai Huang @haih-g from google#1105. The original implementation had design deficiencies that weren't really addressable without redesign, so it was reverted. In essence, the original implementation consisted of two separateable parts: * reducing the amount time each repetition is run for, and symmetrically increasing repetition count * running the repetitions in random order While it worked fine for the usual case, it broke down when user would specify repetitions (it would completely ignore that request), or specified per-repetition min time (while it would still adjust the repetition count, it would not adjust the per-repetition time, leading to much greater run times) Here, like i was originally suggesting in the original review, i'm separating the features, and only dealing with a single one - running repetitions in random order. Now that the runs/repetitions are no longer in-order, the tooling may wish to sort the output, and indeed `compare.py` has been updated to do that: google#1168.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, the tooling just keeps the whatever benchmark order
that was present, and this is fine nowadays, but once the benchmarks
will be optionally run interleaved, that will be rather suboptimal.
So, now that i have introduced family index and per-family instance index,
we can define an order for the benchmarks, and sort them accordingly.
There is a caveat with aggregates, we assume that they are in-order,
and hopefully we won't mess that order up..