[llvm-dev] MLIR Buildbot configuration

[Galina Kistanova via llvm-dev]

Hi Christian,

That's the default mode.
The both builders explicitly defined 'mergeRequests': False to build
individual commits.

I have changed that by
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/commit/8d3a31cb12b51456e276a19baf6694cc44ff8c59
.

Now they would group the commits if there is a waiting queue. This means
larger blame lists, unfortunately. So, if you have resources to throw to
these builders to make them faster, that would be great.

Thanks

Galina



On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 5:43 AM Christian Kühnel <kuhnel at google.com> wrote:

> Hi Galina,
>
> How can I set a builder to "batch mode"? I could not find any
> documentation or examples for that...
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:33 AM Christian Kühnel <kuhnel at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> happy to set it to batch mode, if someone tells me where to configure it
>> :)
>>
>> Otherwise we could also upgrade the machine from 16 to 32 cores, if you
>> would like to get more build results. Or do both...
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 1:05 AM Stephen Neuendorffer via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for batching.  In practice it's probably more important that things
>>> get run for every MLIR checkin, and not necessarily for every LLVM checkin.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed there is quite a backlog here right now:
>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/mlir-windows and here
>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/mlir-nvidia
>>>> I agree that 17 hours of latency is likely too high to justify the
>>>> non-batching.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the bots are doing `ninja` first followed by `ninja
>>>> check-mlir`: they likely build much more than they need: the build could be
>>>> faster by avoiding the first step.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:05 AM Johannes Doerfert <
>>>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I broke the MLIR build yesterday and the two Flang bots told me about
>>>>> it
>>>>> pretty much right away. Yay!
>>>>> That is how I always thought the setup should work (modulo that we all
>>>>> try not to break builds).
>>>>> Today I got emails from an MLIR bot and I was a bit confused. I looked
>>>>> at the configuration of the two
>>>>> MLIR bots and it seems they test commits one by one, with the backlog
>>>>> that you would expect.
>>>>> I was wondering if my observation is correct and if this is the
>>>>> desired
>>>>> behavior?
>>>>> I don't necessarily think such a setup is bad but both MLIR bots run
>>>>> it
>>>>> this way, which might catch
>>>>> more problems but with a longer delay, unsure if it is worth it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured I bring this up but I'm fine when people don't see the need
>>>>> for change (or more bots).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Johannes
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200825/ec653c94/attachment.html>