[clangd-dev] Investigating performance tracking infrastructure

Eric Liu via clangd-dev clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Aug 14 00:31:28 PDT 2018

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 08:40 Kirill Bobyrev <kbobyrev.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> Such test-suite might be very useful and it'd be great to have it. As Eric
> mentioned, I am working on pulling benchmark library into LLVM. Although I
> fell behind over the past week due to the complications with libc++ (you
> can follow the thread here:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-August/125176.html).
> Eric, Ilya and I have been discussing a possible "cheap" solution - a tool
> which user can feed a compilation database and which could process some
> queries (maybe in YAML format, too). This would allow a realistic benchmark
> (since you could simply feed LLVM codebase or anything else with the size
> you're aiming for) and be relatively easy to implement. The downside of
> such approach would be that it would require some setup effort. As an
> alternative, it might be worth feeding YAML symbol index instead of the
> compilation commands, because currently the global symbol builder is not
> very efficient. I am looking into that issue, too; we have few ideas what
> the performance bottlenecks in global-symbol-builder can be and how to fix
> them, hopefully I will make the tool way faster soon.
Note that sema latency is something we also need to take into
consideration, as it's always part of code completion flow, with or without

> In the long term, however, I think the LLVM Community is also interested
> in benchmarking other tools which exist under the LLVM umbrella, so I think
> that opting in for the Benchmark approach would be more beneficial. Having
> an infrastructure based on LNT that we could run either on some buildbots
> or locally would be even better. The downside is that it might turn out to
> be really hard to maintain a realistic test-suite, e.g. storing YAML dump
> of the static index somewhere would be hard because we wouldn't want 300+
> Mb files in the tree but hosting it somewhere else and downloading would
> also potentially introduce additional complexity. On the other hand,
> generating a realistic index programmatically might also be hard.
> Having said that, convenient infrastructure for benchmarking which would
> align with the LNT and wouldn't require additional effort from the users
> would be amazing and we are certainly interested in collaboration. What
> models of the benchmarks have you considered and what do you think about
> the options described above?
> Kind regards,
> Kirill Bobyrev
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:35 AM Eric Liu via clangd-dev <
> clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>> Kirill is working on pulling google benchmark library into llvm and
>> adding benchmarks to clangd. We are also mostly interested in code
>> completion latency and index performance at this point. We don't have a
>> very clear idea on how to create realistic benchmarks yet e.g. what code to
>> use, what static index corpus to use. I wonder if you have ideas here.
>> Another option that might be worth considering is adding a tool that runs
>> clangd code completion on some existing files in the llvm/clang codebase.
>> It can potentially measure both code completion quality and latency.
>> -Eric
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 00:53 Alex L via clangd-dev <
>> clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm currently investigating and putting together a plan for open-source
>>> and internal performance tracking infrastructure for Clangd.
>>> Initially we're interested in one particular metric:
>>> - Code-completion latency
>>> I would like to put together infrastructure that's based on LNT and that
>>> would identify performance regressions that arise as new commits come in.
>>> From the performance issues I've observed in our libclang stack the
>>> existing test-suite that exist in LLVM does not really reproduce the
>>> performance issues that we see in practice well enough. In my opinion we
>>> should create some sort of editor performance test-suite that would be
>>> unrelated to the test-suite that's used for compile time and performance
>>> tracking. WDYT?
>>> I'm wondering if there are any other folks looking at this at the moment
>>> as well. If yes, I would like to figure out a way to collaborate on a
>>> solution that would satisfy all of our requirements. Please let me know if
>>> you have ideas in terms of how we should be running the tests /  what the
>>> test-suite should be, or what you needs are.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clangd-dev mailing list
>>> clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clangd-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> clangd-dev mailing list
>> clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clangd-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/clangd-dev/attachments/20180814/79d2b06c/attachment.html>

More information about the clangd-dev mailing list