Skip to content

Conversation

@ianayl
Copy link
Contributor

@ianayl ianayl commented Oct 9, 2025

This PR:

  • moves benchmarking CI data to benchmark-ci-tests branch instead of intel/llvm-ci-perf-results
  • removes the need for an additional bot user when pushing data (as well as the need to periodically update its tokens)

Test run: https://github.com/intel/llvm/actions/runs/18386952310/job/52388325821 (job failed due to "regression"; issue should be addressed with the merge of #20277

@ianayl ianayl requested a review from a team as a code owner October 9, 2025 20:37
@ianayl ianayl requested a review from a team October 9, 2025 20:37
# Update benchmarking dashboard configuration
cat << EOF > benchmarks/config.js
remoteDataUrl = 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/llvm-ci-perf-results/refs/heads/unify-ci/';
remoteDataUrl = 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/llvm/refs/heads/sycl-benchmark-ci-results/';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

my note on this change - while it seems convenient, I can see on my PC, that repo intel/llvm-ci-perf-results is ~600MB - this will be extra MBs added to intel/llvm repo, which is already quite big - just to consider

Copy link
Contributor

@uditagarwal97 uditagarwal97 Oct 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ianayl would it be possible to compress the benchmarking data before pushing it to intel/llvm ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In theory yes, but only the archived data. I think we'll need to have a conversation on this: it might even be reasonable to delete horribly outdated data.

We could also try moving archived data to intel/llvm-ci-perf-results, but alas that'll mean we need to keep an updated bot user token again for the repository.

Do github repositories have a max storage quota?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do github repositories have a max storage quota?

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/repository-limits#repository-size

we'll need to have a conversation on this

I think we should have that conversation before merging this PR. Currently, the size of intel/llvm-ci-perf-results is ~600MB, but, if unchecked the size will increase further.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In theory yes, but only the archived data. I think we'll need to have a conversation on this: it might even be reasonable to delete horribly outdated data.

Compressing results files gives ~190MB out of 320M, so I think it is better to just remove outdated data. We have data starting at March'25.

How many months of data do wee need to keep. 6? In this case we will have data staring from 15th April today. The rest will be in git history, hopefully well compressed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could also try moving archived data to intel/llvm-ci-perf-results, but alas that'll mean we need to keep an updated bot user token again for the repository.

If we go this way, we can archive e.g. once every second week, or something, and make a PR instead of pushing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unfortunately, today is the last day of my internship, I will not have time to implement this.

I will aim to get this PR to be merge-ready today, but someone else will need to make a new PR that deletes old data

@ianayl
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianayl commented Oct 31, 2025

Unfortunately, my internship is ending; I won't have access to the CI anymore in order to properly test and finish PR.

Leftover tasks:

  • another review over this PR is due
  • if changes are necessary, changes can be made to the ianayl/benchmark-ci-no-botuser branch within intel/llvm. I will probably not have access to this branch for much longer 😅
  • a mechanism still needs to be implemented for deleting old data in sycl-benchmark-ci-results branch, although this could be a separate PR
  • before the PR is merged: please make sure that sycl-benchmark-ci-results matches that of intel/llvm-ci-perf-results; the trees have diverged due to testing in this PR, and a force push is necessary

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

sarnex commented Nov 3, 2025

@intel/llvm-reviewers-benchmarking Since Ian is no longer working on this, are there any flags to merging it as-is? It's unclear to me if any unaddressed feedback is blocking. From my POV CI seems fine.

Copy link
Contributor

@lukaszstolarczuk lukaszstolarczuk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I reviewed the current code and it LGTM 👍

Perhaps the last Ian 's point should be verified - I'm not sure if any work should be done to make sure results are up-to-date...

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

sarnex commented Nov 3, 2025

@lukaszstolarczuk Thanks! Do you have any suggestions on who is qualified to check that? I would do it but I don't know anything about the benchmarking code.

@uditagarwal97
Copy link
Contributor

I can verify that

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

sarnex commented Nov 3, 2025

@uditagarwal97 Thanks!

@uditagarwal97
Copy link
Contributor

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

sarnex commented Nov 3, 2025

@uditagarwal97 Sorry does that mean this PR is safe to merge?

@uditagarwal97
Copy link
Contributor

@uditagarwal97 Sorry does that mean this PR is safe to merge?

Yes, I think we should be good to merge.

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

sarnex commented Nov 3, 2025

Thank you!

@sarnex sarnex merged commit 33c11a6 into sycl Nov 3, 2025
50 of 53 checks passed
@uditagarwal97 uditagarwal97 deleted the ianayl/benchmark-ci-no-botuser branch November 3, 2025 16:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants