-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 274
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
2.1 vs 2.2 comparison using performance repo #193
Comments
x64 Windows 10 PCWindows 10.0.17763.134 (1809/October2018Update/Redstone5)
|
x86 Windows 10 PCWindows 10.0.17763.134 (1809/October2018Update/Redstone5)
|
Ubuntu 18.04 x64 PCubuntu 18.04
|
macOS 10.13.6 x64 MacBook PromacOS High Sierra 10.13.6 (17G65) [Darwin 17.7.0]
|
@danmosemsft this benchmark is not stable. I guess that it's dependent on array or loop alignment. I need to to a research about the alignment issues. |
@adamsitnik I guess most of these must be either noise, alignment or tiered jitting, given there were of course very few changes made in 2.2 corefx/coreclr that were not serviced into 2.1. Would it be interesting to repeat the 2.1->2.2 analysis with tiered jitting disabled? Then if the system is working well, I would expect just about zero regressions/improvements. The 2.2->3.0 report will be much more interesting... |
Another thing that might be interesting is to see what it looks like with the OS aggregated. I did a crude comparison of the regressions above by sort and diff and found only a very few of the rows appear in all the OS. In general most (?) times we regress something, it regresses for all OS. So it could be useful interesting pointer to particularly interesting regressions. |
I am closing this issue since we did not find any significant regressions. There was some noise, but having 20-30 noisy benchmarks in a portfolio of 2000 benchmarks is quite a good result ;) @danmosemsft let's talk about the other comparisons we need during our next 1:1 |
OK! |
In this issue, I am going to post 2.1 vs 2.2 results for the benchmarks we have here using ResultsComparer from #165
Sample command:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: