Re: proposal: replace talos with inline tests

On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:17:29 PM UTC-8, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 3/4/13 5:09 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > >> We already don't back back out changes for regressing a benchmark like > >> we back them out for regressing tests. I think this is at least > >>

Re: proposal: replace talos with inline tests

On Monday, March 4, 2013 4:56:46 PM UTC-8, Jeff Hammel wrote: > I'll point out and really this is about all I have to say on this thread > that while perf testing (that is, recording results) may bewell, not > easy, but not too awful that rigorous analysis of what the data means > and if the

Re: proposal: replace talos with inline tests

> We already don't back back out changes for regressing a benchmark like > we back them out for regressing tests. I think this is at least > partially because a general sentiment that not all of our benchmarks > correlate strongly to what they're trying to measure. I know this has been a hot top

Re: proposal: replace talos with inline tests

On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:42:39 AM UTC-8, Ed Morley wrote: > (CCing auto-to...@mozilla.com) > > jmaher and jhammel will be able to comment more on the talos specifics, > but few thoughts off the top of my head: > > It seems like we're conflating multiple issues here: > 1) "[talos] is a separa

Re: proposal: replace talos with inline tests

On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:15:56 AM UTC-8, Jim Mathies wrote: > For metrofx we’ve been working on getting omtc and apzc running in the > browser. One of the things we need to be able to do is run performance tests > that tell us whether or not the work we’re doing is having a positive effect > o

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 2/4/2013 6:59 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: >> I was talking to Taras and Naveed about this today, and what also >> came up was: >> >> 4. Do the work to make 64-bit JS jit perf as good as 32-bit JS jit >> perf,

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Monday, February 4, 2013 1:39:46 PM UTC-8, Brian Smith wrote: > Also, I want to echo khuey's comment: It seems like a lot of the argument > against PGO is that, while our benchmarks are faster, users won't actually > notice any difference. If that is true, then I agree with khuey that that is

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Friday, February 1, 2013 7:19:04 PM UTC-8, Brian Smith wrote: > Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > Given the above, I'd like to propose the following long-term > > > solutions: > > > > 1. Did we try escalating a support request to Microsoft regarding this issue? > I know it is kind of an odd thing

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:44:28 AM UTC-8, Jim Mathies wrote: > > > Our Talos results may be measuring imperfect things, but we have > > > enough datapoints that we can draw statistical conclusions from > > > them confidently. > > > Statistics doesn't help if you're measuring the wrong thing

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:32:52 AM UTC-8, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 1/31/2013 12:05 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:17:44 AM UTC-8, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > >> For what it's worth, reading > >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sh

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:17:44 AM UTC-8, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 1/31/2013 10:51 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > On 2013-01-31 11:43 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >> > wrote: > >> > >> We then tried to get a sens

Re: Proposed 2013 Platform Goals

On Friday, January 11, 2013 3:51:57 PM UTC-8, Gary Kwong wrote: > > Thinking of making the top level goals bugs and hanging related work off > > them as deps. What do people think of this idea? Is it maintainable? > > Sounds reasonable, they could be meta bugs, marked with the "meta" keyword. M

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:53:37 AM UTC-8, Alex Keybl wrote: > Discussions are ongoing as to whether disabling the test is our > best path forward here, given engineering opposition to disabling > PGO. I strongly recommend disabling the test for 32-bit Linux PGO and moving on. Bug 79929

Re: Not prefixing APIs exposed to Web content (was: Re: navigator.id update - FX patches in progress)

On Friday, June 22, 2012 11:21:05 AM UTC-7, Henri Sivonen wrote: > For reasons stated in http://hsivonen.iki.fi/vendor-prefixes/ I think > we should adopt the policy dbaron proposed ( > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/itl6mtx2dxI > ) for CSS for Web-exposed A

Re: Proposal for reorganizing test directories

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:26:34 AM UTC-7, Henrik Skupin wrote: > As nearly all of you agreed on a flat folder structure makes a lot of > sense if only one type of test is present. I second that, and we > shouldn't make use of a 'tests' subfolder in such a case. But it would > be fantastic if

Re: Proposal for reorganizing test directories

On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:44:03 AM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2012-11-01 8:47 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > > |-- tests/ > > > |-- browser-chrome/ > > > |-- topic1 (omit this level if there would be only one) >

Re: Proposal for reorganizing test directories

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 6:33:39 PM UTC-7, therealbr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:47:57 PM UTC-7, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > > At the last Tuesday meeting I foolishly agreed :-) to take charge of > > following up on this discussion and seeing i

PGO: another test + PGO topcrashes

I'm still thinking about PGO: 1. I did another test. I wanted to know the effect on games, so I played BananaBread and eyeballed modal fps. (If anyone knows of a more accurate way to measure fps in the game, let me know.) I got: opt 38 pgo 41 Similar magnitude to other domains. Super-unsci

Re: Proposal for reorganizing test directories

At the last Tuesday meeting I foolishly agreed :-) to take charge of following up on this discussion and seeing if we can come to a decision. So, here goes: First, I want to try to pour some gasoline on the dying embers and suggest that perhaps we should totally rearrange everything. As a develo

Re: Benefits of PGO on Windows

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:59:10 AM UTC-7, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > If you're interested in the benchmark side of things, it's fairly easy > to compare now that we build both PGO and non-PGO builds on a regular > basis. I'm having a little trouble getting graphserver to give me recent > data

Re: Benefits of PGO on Windows

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:00:13 PM UTC-7, Mike Hommey wrote: > If you copy omni.ja from the PGO build to the opt build, you'll be able > to see if everything comes from that. We're planning to make that > currently PGO-only optimization run on all builds. (bug 773171) Excellent suggestion,

Benefits of PGO on Windows

Following the recent discussion about PGO, I really wanted to understand what benefits PGO gives Firefox on Windows, if any--I was skeptical. Rafael (IIRC) posted some Talos numbers, but I didn't know how to interpret them. So I decided to try a few simple experiments to try to falsify the hypot

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:33:31 PM UTC-7, Mike Hommey wrote: > That being said, PGO on Linux is between 5 and 20% improvement on our > various talos tests. That's with the version of gcc we currently use, > which is 4.5. I'd expect 4.7 to do a better job even, especially if we > added lto t

Re: Request for reviewers and super-reviewers to require more in-code documentation of new code

On Friday, September 14, 2012 2:57:24 PM UTC-7, Justin Lebar wrote: > I propose here that reviewers and super-reviewers should require that > new code be appropriately commented, just as we require that new code > be appropriately formatted. (We seem to be quite good at enforcing > the latter, eve

Re: Minimum Required Python Version

On Monday, September 10, 2012 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, RyanVM wrote: > On 9/10/2012 2:35 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > >> So, 2.6 or 2.7? > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up! Coun

Re: Minimum Required Python Version

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote: > So, 2.6 or 2.7? Thanks for bringing this up! Count me as another vote for 2.7. I don't like using obsolete language versions outside of necessity, and I've never found it difficult to install Python. I think MozillaBuild is

Re: The current state of Talos benchmarks

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:54:55 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Oh, sorry, I needed to ask my question better. I'm specifically > wondering who needs to track and investigate the regression if it > happened on a range of, let's say, 5 committers... Ah. I believe that's a job for a bugmast

Re: The current state of Talos benchmarks

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:11:25 AM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12-08-29 9:20 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:03:24 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > In my opinion, one of the reasons why Talos is disliked is because many > people

Re: The current state of Talos benchmarks

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:03:24 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The way the current situation happens is that many of the developers > ignore the Talos regression emails that go to dev-tree-management, Talos is widely disliked and distrusted by developers, because it's h

Re: telemetry data retention strategy

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:03:38 PM UTC-7, Taras Glek wrote: > Hi, > > According to metrics we have about 1TB of telemetry data in hadoop. This > is almost a year worth of telemetry data. Our telemetry ping packets > keep growing as we add more probes. As the hadoop database gets bigger, >

Re: Switching nsnull to nullptr

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:55:15 AM UTC-7, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:45:22 PM UTC+3, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > SpiderMonkey officially has a C++ API now, so nullptr should be OK. > There is at least one wrinkle, which is that we need to support jsd for a

Re: Switching nsnull to nullptr

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:19:43 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12-07-25 1:45 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:45:43 AM UTC-7, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > >> > >> &gt; On W

Re: Switching nsnull to nullptr

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:45:43 AM UTC-7, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:04:31 PM UTC+3, Justin Lebar wrote: > > > > The next step is to s/nsnull/nullptr/ in the codebase, and > get rid > > of nsnull. > > > > >