Buildbot numbers for week of 11/22/2015 - 11/28/2015

[Tobias Grosser via llvm-commits]

On 12/01/2015 02:05 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com
> <mailto:gkistanova at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi David,
>
>     Thank you for the useful suggestions, I will work on these.
>
>     >I guess the entries with no entry in the failed column have zero failures?
>     Yes.
>
>           perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-before-vectorizer
>     |         31 |         31 |
>           perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-before-vectorizer-detect-only
>     |         31 |         27 | 05:28:12
>
>     These /\ two builders failed most of the time, but they also only
>     ran a handful of times. I guess they're triggering off polly changes
>     only? I wonder if they should trigger off LLVM changes too, but I'm
>     not sure.
>
>     They build on llvm changes also, but they both build for quite a
>     long time. I think it's the reason why they do not build more.
>
>
> Ah, OK - so the other suggestions might help demonstrate/understand that
> behavior better.

These buildbots run performance tests, meaning they run the LNT test 
suite 10 times per run to get stable results. They are triggered on any 
LLVM/clang/Polly test but do not run more often just because we do not
have more hardware to run them more often. The relevant buildslave is 
constantly building something.

> Tobias - any idea why these builders are /quite/ so slow & whether they
> could be improved? With large blame lists that come from a small number
> of slaves on a slow builder task it makes them hard to action. Are they
> useful to you?

These bots do _not_ send out any emails, exactly for this reason. But 
yes, they are very useful to quickly get an idea of our current 
compile-time/run-time performance.

Thanks for you taking care of the buildbot noise. If my bots cause any 
issue for you, please let me know. Ensuring low noise is very important.

Best,
Tobias