Skip to content

Conversation

@levb
Copy link
Collaborator

@levb levb commented Aug 5, 2024

  • Added CI steps to compare to the base branch
  • Dialed down # messages, tuned the matrix
  • Added locking in the bench to clear sanitize=thread

restore bench, CI
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 5, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.83%. Comparing base (1553d4a) to head (30fb4cb).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #777      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.71%   68.83%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          39       39              
  Lines       15207    15251      +44     
  Branches     3143     3157      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits        10449    10498      +49     
+ Misses       1700     1682      -18     
- Partials     3058     3071      +13     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@levb levb marked this pull request as ready for review August 6, 2024 13:28
@levb levb requested review from kozlovic and mtmk August 6, 2024 13:28
Copy link
Member

@kozlovic kozlovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The number of messages that we print out seem a bit weird. Also posted some comments about the variability of 2 runs of the same branch.

printf("\t{\"subs\":%d, \"threads\":%d, \"messages\":%d, \"best\":%d, \"average\":%d, \"worst\":%d}%s\n",
numSubs, env->threads.useGlobalDelivery ? env->threads.max : 0, numPubMessages * numSubs, best, average, worst, comma);
fflush(stdout);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like you write the number of messages as numPubMessages * numSubs, where numPubMessages is NMessages / numSubs. So you should not simply write NMessages? Because of rounding of the first division, the number of messages may not be what you expect after the multiplication.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is so that each sub gets the same number of messages, since we average/best/worst across subs. The output includes the actual total number of messages received.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But again, we have:

int numPubMessages = NMessages / numSubs;
...
printf("\t{\"subs\":%d, \"threads\":%d, \"messages\":%d, \"best\":%d, \"average\":%d, \"worst\":%d}%s\n",
                   numSubs, env->threads.useGlobalDelivery ? env->threads.max : 0, numPubMessages * numSubs, best, average, worst, comma);

This is for a given _benchMatrix run. So we divide the number of messages (NMessages) by the number of subs, but then print out that number * numSubs. So to me, it looks like using NMessages should be used?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh right, sorry I missed the question. "messages" is included just to be part of the key, it is not used in any calculations. For the purpose of the key (combined with NSubs) it's as good as NMessages, but it was useful for me to see it to visually confirm the correctness of how it was calculated.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok.

@levb levb requested a review from kozlovic August 6, 2024 18:19
@levb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

levb commented Aug 6, 2024

@kozlovic I answered the questions, not sure there are any changes to make?

@levb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

levb commented Aug 7, 2024

@kozlovic I apologize if I confused by mentioning it in the "child" PR, it's this one I need your LGTM on, otherwise I'd need to bypass the branch protection, which I'd rather not.

@kozlovic
Copy link
Member

kozlovic commented Aug 7, 2024

@levb But on that one, I still had a comment that I don't think you addressed: https://github.com/nats-io/nats.c/pull/777/files#r1706002494?

Copy link
Member

@kozlovic kozlovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@levb levb merged commit 50ffc0f into main Aug 7, 2024
@levb levb deleted the lev-bench2 branch August 7, 2024 19:55
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants