-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 796
[CI] Remove dependency on bot user for uploading benchmark CI results #20333
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| # 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/'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 I think we'll need to have a conversation on this: it might even be reasonable to delete horribly outdated data.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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
…hmark-ci-no-botuser
|
Unfortunately, my internship is ending; I won't have access to the CI anymore in order to properly test and finish PR. Leftover tasks:
|
|
@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. |
There was a problem hiding this 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...
|
@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. |
|
I can verify that |
|
@uditagarwal97 Thanks! |
|
@uditagarwal97 Sorry does that mean this PR is safe to merge? |
Yes, I think we should be good to merge. |
|
Thank you! |
This PR:
benchmark-ci-testsbranch instead of intel/llvm-ci-perf-resultsTest 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