[llvm-dev] MLIR Buildbot configuration

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

Awesome, thanks Galina!

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200825/7fe03bb8/attachment.html>