From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
To: "Jerome Tollet (jtollet)" <jtollet@cisco.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
"Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>,
"Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>, "ci@dpdk.org" <ci@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] proposal for DPDK CI improvement
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:34:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760D97B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EB93EE35-B55D-4D53-9597-25EDED315F08@cisco.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet
> (jtollet)
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 10:27 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Xu, Qian Q
> <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org; Liu, Yong <yong.liu@intel.com>; ci@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] proposal for DPDK CI improvement
>
> Hi Thomas & Qian,
> IMHO, performance results should be centralized and executed in a
> trusted & controlled environment.
> If official DPDK numbers are coming from private lab’s vendors,
> perception might be that they are not 100% neutral. That would probably
> not help DPDK community to be seen open & transparent.
+1
Somebody (Jan Blunck I think) also said on last week's call that performance testing was a higher priority than CI for a centralized lab. A model where we have centralized performance test and distributed CI might work well.
>
> Jerome
>
> Le 07/11/2016 11:17, « moving au nom de Thomas Monjalon » <moving-
> bounces@dpdk.org au nom de thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi Qian,
>
> 2016-11-07 07:55, Xu, Qian Q:
> > I think the discussion about CI is a good start. I agreed on the
> general ideas:
> > 1. It's good to have more contributors for CI and it's a community
> effort.
> > 2. Building a distributed CI system is good and necessary.
> > 3. "When and Where" is the very basic and important questions.
> >
> > Add my 2 cents here.
> > 1. Distributed test vs Centralized lab
> > We can put the build and functional tests on our distributed lab.
> As to the performance, as we all know, performance is key to DPDK.
> > So I suggested we can have the centralized lab for the performance
> testing, and some comments as below:
> > a). Do we want to publish the performance report on different
> platforms with different HW/NICs? Anyone against on publishing
> performance numbers?
> > b). If the answer to the first question is "Yes", so how to ensure
> others trust the performance and how to reproduce the performance if we
> don't have the platforms/HWs?
> > As Marvin said, transparency and independence is the advantage for
> open centralized lab. Besides, we can demonstrate to all audience about
> DPDK performance with the
> > Lab. Of course, we need the control of the system, not allow
> others to access it randomly. It's another topic of access control. I
> even think that if the lab can be used as
> > the training lab or demo lab when we have the community training
> or performance demo days(I just named the events).
> >
> > 2. Besides "When and Where", then "What" and "How"
> > When:
> > - regularly on a git tree ---what tests need to be done here?
> Propose to have the daily build, daily functional regression, daily
> performance regression
> > - after each patch submission -> report available via
> patchwork----what tests need to be done? Build test as the first one,
> maybe we can add functional or performance in future.
> >
> > How to collect and display the results?
> > Thanks Thomas for the hard work on patchwork upgrade. And it's
> good to see the CheckPatch display here.
> > IMHO, to build the complete distributed system needs very big
> effort. Thomas, any effort estimation and the schedule for it?
>
> It must be a collective effort.
> I plan to publish a new git repository really soon to help building
> a test lab.
> The first version will allow to send some test reports correctly
> formatted.
> The next step will be to help applying patches (on right branch with
> series support).
>
> > a). Currently, there is only " S/W/F for Success/Warning/Fail
> counters" in tests, so does it refer to build test or functional test or
> performance test?
>
> It can be any test, including performance ones. A major performance
> regression
> must be seen as a failed test.
>
> > If it only referred to build test, then you may need change the
> title to Build S/W/F. Then how many architecture or platforms for the
> builds? For example, we support Intel IA build,
> > ARM build, IBM power build. Then we may need collect build results
> from INTEL/IBM/ARM and etc to show the total S/W/F. For example, if the
> build is passed on IA but failed on IBM, then we
> > Need record it as 1S/0W/1F. I don't know if we need collect the
> warning information here.
>
> The difference between warnings and failures is a matter of
> severity.
> The checkpatch errors are reported as warnings.
>
> > b). How about performance result display on website? No matter
> distributed or centralized lab, we need a place to show the performance
> number or the performance trend to
> > ensure no performance regression? Do you have any plan to
> implement it?
>
> No I have no plan but I expect it to be solved by ones working on
> performance tests, maybe you? :)
> If a private lab can publish some web graphs of performance
> evolutions, it is great.
> If we can do it in a centralized lab, it is also great.
> If we can have a web interface to gather every performance numbers
> and graphs,
> it is really really great!
>
> > 3. Proposal to have a CI mailing list for people working on CI to
> have the regular meetings only discussing about CI? Maybe we can have
> more frequent meetings at first to have an alignment. Then
> > We can reduce the frequency if the solution is settle down.
> Current call is covering many other topics. What do you think?
>
> The mailing list is now created: ci@dpdk.org.
> About meetings, I feel we can start working through ci@dpdk.org and
> see
> how efficient it is. Though if you need a meeting, feel free to
> propose.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-07 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-05 4:47 Liu, Yong
2016-11-05 19:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-07 5:15 ` Liu, Yong
2016-11-07 9:59 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-07 14:59 ` Liu, Yong
2016-11-07 7:55 ` Xu, Qian Q
2016-11-07 10:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-07 10:26 ` Jerome Tollet (jtollet)
2016-11-07 10:34 ` O'Driscoll, Tim [this message]
2016-11-07 10:47 ` Arnon Warshavsky
2016-11-07 10:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-07 12:20 ` Xu, Qian Q
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760D97B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=jtollet@cisco.com \
--cc=moving@dpdk.org \
--cc=qian.q.xu@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=yong.liu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).