+1 On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:09 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> +1, this seems like a good step with a clear win. > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:06 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Python precommits are still timing out on #9925. I am guessing that > means this change would not be enough. > > > > I am proposing cutting down the number of test variants we run in > precommits. Currently for each version we ran the following variants > serially: > > - base: Runs all unit tests with tox > > - Cython: Installs cython and runs all unit tests as base version. The > original purpose was to ensure that tests pass with or without cython. > There is probably a huge overlap with base. (IIRC only a few coders have > different slow vs fast tests.) > > - GCP: Installs GCP dependencies and tests all base + additional gcp > specific tests. The original purpose was to ensure that GCP is an optional > component and all non-GCP tests still works without GCP components. > > > > We can reduce the list to cython + GCP tests only. This will cover the > same group of tests and will check that tests pass with or without cython > or GCP dependencies. This could reduce the precommit time by ~30 minutes. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Ahmet > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9925 > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:24 AM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > I don't have the bandwidth right now to tackle this. Feel free to > take it. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:16 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The Python SDK does as well. These calls are coming from > >> >> to_runner_api, is_stateful_dofn, and validate_stateful_dofn which are > >> >> invoked once per pipene or bundle. They are, however, surprisingly > >> >> expensive. Even memoizing across those three calls should save a > >> >> significant amount of time. Udi, did you want to tackle this? > >> >> > >> >> Looking at the profile, Pipeline.to_runner_api() is being called 30 > >> >> times in this test, and [Applied]PTransform.to_fn_api being called > >> >> 3111 times, so that in itself might be interesting to investigate. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:26 AM Robert Burke <rob...@frantil.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > As does the Go SDK. Invokers are memoized and when possible code > is generated to avoid reflection. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 6:46 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Noting for the benefit of the thread archive in case someone goes > digging and wonders if this affects other SDKs: the Java SDK memoizes > DoFnSignatures and generated DoFnInvoker classes. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kenn > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 6:59 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Re: #9283 slowing down tests, ideas for slowness: > >> >> >>> 1. I added a lot of test cases, some with locally run pipelines. > >> >> >>> 2. The PR somehow changed how coders are selected, and now we're > using less efficient ones. > >> >> >>> 3. New dependency funcsigs is slowing things down? (py2 only) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I ran "pytest -k PipelineAnalyzerTest --profile-svg" on 2.7 and > 3.7 and got these cool graphs (attached). > >> >> >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments takes 56.66% of CPU time > (IIUC), gets called ~230k times > >> >> >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 30.88%, gets called ~200k > times > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> After memoization of get_function_args_defaults: > >> >> >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 20.02% > >> >> >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 8.11% > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:38 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> *not deciles, but 9-percentiles : ) > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:31 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> I've ran the tests in Python 2 (without cython), and used a > utility to track runtime for each test method. I found some of the > following things: > >> >> >>>>> - Total test methods run: 2665 > >> >> >>>>> - Total test runtime: 990 seconds > >> >> >>>>> - Deciles of time spent: > >> >> >>>>> - 1949 tests run in the first 9% of time > >> >> >>>>> - 173 in the 9-18% rang3e > >> >> >>>>> - 130 in the 18-27% range > >> >> >>>>> - 95 in the 27-36% range > >> >> >>>>> - 77 > >> >> >>>>> - 66 > >> >> >>>>> - 55 > >> >> >>>>> - 46 > >> >> >>>>> - 37 > >> >> >>>>> - 24 > >> >> >>>>> - 13 tests run in the last 9% of time. This represents about > 1 minute and a half. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> We may be able to look at the slowest X tests, and get gradual > improvements from there. Although it seems .. not dramatic ones : ) > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> FWIW I uploaded the results here: > https://storage.googleapis.com/apache-beam-website-pull-requests/python-tests/nosetimes.json > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> The slowest 13 tests were: > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > [('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_basic', > >> >> >>>>> 5.253582000732422), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_wordcount', > >> >> >>>>> 7.907713890075684), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.gcp.bigquery_test.PipelineBasedStreamingInsertTest.test_failure_has_same_insert_ids', > >> >> >>>>> 5.237942934036255), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.transforms.combiners_test.CombineTest.test_global_sample', > >> >> >>>>> 5.563946008682251), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.sideinputs_test.EmulatedCollectionsTest.test_large_iterable_values', > >> >> >>>>> 5.680700063705444), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.parquetio_test.TestParquet.test_sink_transform_multiple_row_group', > >> >> >>>>> 6.111238956451416), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.statesampler_test.StateSamplerTest.test_basic_sampler', > >> >> >>>>> 6.007534980773926), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_basic', > >> >> >>>>> 13.993916988372803), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_read_cache_expansion', > >> >> >>>>> 6.3383049964904785), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_word_count', > >> >> >>>>> 9.157485008239746), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.portability.portable_runner_test.PortableRunnerTestWithSubprocesses.test_pardo_side_and_main_outputs', > >> >> >>>>> 5.191173076629639), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.vcfio_test.VcfSourceTest.test_pipeline_read_file_pattern_large', > >> >> >>>>> 6.2221620082855225), > >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.fileio_test.WriteFilesTest.test_streaming_complex_timing', > >> >> >>>>> 7.7187910079956055)] > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> I have written https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9910 to > reduce FnApiRunnerTest variations. > >> >> >>>>>> I'm not in a rush to merge, but rather happy to start a > discussion. > >> >> >>>>>> I'll also try to figure out if there are other tests slowing > down the suite significantly. > >> >> >>>>>> Best > >> >> >>>>>> -P. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 7:41 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, Brian. > >> >> >>>>>>> +Udi Meiri > >> >> >>>>>>> As next step, it would be good to know whether slowdown is > caused by tests in this PR, or its effect on other tests, and to confirm > that only Python 2 codepaths were affected. > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:35 PM Brian Hulette < > bhule...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> I did a bisect based on the runtime of `./gradlew > :sdks:python:test-suites:tox:py2:testPy2Gcp` around the commits between 9/1 > and 9/15 to see if I could find the source of the spike that happened > around 9/6. It looks like it was due to PR#9283 [1]. I thought maybe this > search would reveal some mis-guided configuration change, but as far as I > can tell 9283 just added a well-tested feature. I don't think there's > anything to learn from that... I just wanted to circle back about it in > case others are curious about that spike. > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> I'm +1 on bumping some FnApiRunner configurations. > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Brian > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9283 > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:49 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to remove some of the extra > FnApiRunner configurations. Perhaps some of the multiworkers and some of > the grpc versions? > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Best > >> >> >>>>>>>>> -P. > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:27 PM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> It looks like fn_api_runner_test.py is quite expensive, > taking 10-15+ > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> minutes on each version of Python. This test consists of > a base class > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that is basically a validates runner suite, and is then > run in several > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> configurations, many more of which (including some > expensive ones) > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> have been added lately. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTest(unittest.TestCase): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpc(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcMultiThreaded(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithDisabledCaching(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeat(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeatAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced we need to run all of these > permutations, or at > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> least not all tests in all permutations. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:57 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > I took another look at this and precommit ITs are > already running in parallel, albeit in the same suite. However it appears > Python precommits became slower, especially Python 2 precommits [35 min per > suite x 3 suites], see [1]. Not sure yet what caused the increase, but > precommits used to be faster. Perhaps we have added a slow test or a lot of > new tests. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > [1] > https://scans.gradle.com/s/jvcw5fpqfc64k/timeline?task=ancsbov425524 > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay < > al...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Ack. Separating precommit ITs to a different suite > sounds good. Anyone is interested in doing that? > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:41 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> This should not increase the queue time > substantially, since precommit ITs are running sequentially with precommit > tests, unlike multiple precommit tests which run in parallel to each other. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> The precommit ITs we run are batch and streaming > wordcount tests on Py2 and one Py3 version, so it's not a lot of tests. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:07 PM Ahmet Altay < > al...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> +1 to separating ITs from precommit. Downside would > be, when Chad tried to do something similar [1] it was noted that the total > time to run all precommit tests would increase and also potentially > increase the queue time. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative, we could run a smaller set of > IT tests in precommits and run the whole suite as part of post commit tests. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9642 > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:15 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev > <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> One improvement could be move to Precommit IT tests > into a separate suite from precommit tests, and run it in parallel. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:41 AM Brian Hulette < > bhule...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Python Precommits are taking quite a while now > [1]. Just visually it looks like the average length is 1.5h or so, but it > spikes up to 2h. I've had several precommit runs get aborted due to the 2 > hour limit. > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like there was a spike up above 1h back > on 9/6 and the duration has been steadily rising since then. Is there > anything we can do about this? > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Brian > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [1] > http://104.154.241.245/d/_TNndF2iz/pre-commit-test-latency?orgId=1&from=now-90d&to=now&fullscreen&panelId=4 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
