Skip to content

Conversation

@sekelle
Copy link
Contributor

@sekelle sekelle commented Jul 17, 2019

No description provided.

@vkarak
Copy link
Contributor

vkarak commented Jul 17, 2019

@jenkins-cscs retry daint

@vkarak vkarak changed the title [test] Checks/latency [test] Add CPU memory latency test Jul 17, 2019
@jgphpc
Copy link
Contributor

jgphpc commented Jul 29, 2019

Should lower reference be smaller ?

  * Stage directory: /scratch/snx3000tds/piccinal/reframe/stage/dom/gpu/PrgEnv-cray/CPULatencyTest
  * Failing phase: performance
  * Reason: performance error: failed to meet reference: latencyL2=1.15884, expected 3.44 (l=3.4055999999999997, u=4.3344)

I need to retest this one:

FAILURE INFO for CPULatencyTest
  * System partition: dom:gpu
  * Environment: PrgEnv-gnu
  * Stage directory: /scratch/snx3000tds/piccinal/reframe/stage/dom/gpu/PrgEnv-gnu/CPULatencyTest
  * Job type: batch job (id=None)
  * Maintainers: ['SK']
  * Failing phase: run
  * Reason: job error: [jobid=None] could not find enough nodes: required 1, found 0

@jgphpc
Copy link
Contributor

jgphpc commented Jul 30, 2019

There seems to be an issue with --exec-policy=async and self.num_tasks = 0 (independent of this PR). Running without --exec-policy=async gives:

FAILURE INFO for CPULatencyTest
  * Environment: PrgEnv-cray
  * Reason: performance error: failed to meet reference: latencyL2=1.21557, expected 3.65 (l=3.6134999999999997, u=4.599)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  * Environment: PrgEnv-gnu
  * Reason: performance error: failed to meet reference: latencyL2=1.21533, expected 3.65 (l=3.6134999999999997, u=4.599)

Copy link
Contributor

@jgphpc jgphpc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

discussed offline

Copy link
Contributor

@victorusu victorusu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #874 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #874   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.71%   91.71%           
=======================================
  Files          78       78           
  Lines       10339    10339           
=======================================
  Hits         9482     9482           
  Misses        857      857

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 47e031a...94a955b. Read the comment docs.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Aug 2, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #874 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #874      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.66%   91.68%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          78       78              
  Lines       10350    10350              
==========================================
+ Hits         9487     9489       +2     
+ Misses        863      861       -2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
reframe/frontend/dependency.py 97.47% <0%> (+1.68%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1854148...6d73690. Read the comment docs.

@jgphpc
Copy link
Contributor

jgphpc commented Aug 12, 2019

'ault:intel', 'ault:amdvega' and 'tave:compute' are not in the ci

Copy link
Contributor

@vkarak vkarak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sebkelle1, nice work! I have a couple of suggestions for some side improvements.

@vkarak
Copy link
Contributor

vkarak commented Sep 10, 2019

@sebkelle1 Can you address my PR comments, so that we can merge this one?

@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Sep 11, 2019

Hello @sebkelle1, Thank you for updating!

Cheers! There are no PEP8 issues in this Pull Request!Do see the ReFrame Coding Style Guide

Comment last updated at 2019-09-13 22:56:21 UTC

@vkarak
Copy link
Contributor

vkarak commented Sep 13, 2019

@jenkins-cscs retry dom

@vkarak vkarak merged commit 80b0e1b into reframe-hpc:master Sep 13, 2019
@sekelle sekelle deleted the checks/latency branch May 7, 2020 15:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants