Skip to content
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

Add benchmark for Docutils #216

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Sep 6, 2022
Merged

Conversation

AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

This adds a benchmark of Docutils as an application. I thought a reasonable test load was Docutils' own docs (takes ~4.5-5s on my computer).

I haven't submitted a benchmark before---I don't know the best way of storing the input data, so for speed I copied the documentation into git here (the docs are public domain).

A

Copy link
Contributor

@mdboom mdboom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a good choice for benchmark -- real-world workload over a non-trivial codebase.

In the interest of repository size, would it be possible to remove the images? I don't think docutils does much with them, other than linking to them (though correct me if I'm mistaken), so maybe we only need to include one blank image and adjust all of the links to point to that.

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

I blanked every image file, so the files are still there but empty. I also removed every active .. include:: directive and various other files that are unneeded.

I moved the I/O to be outwith the timing code, I couldn't think of anything better.

A

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

I have no clue what is causing CI to fail, when I ran the bench_docutils function localy everything worked fine. The logs are also unhelpful (exit code 1 != 0).

A

@mdboom
Copy link
Contributor

mdboom commented Jun 17, 2022

I have no clue what is causing CI to fail, when I ran the bench_docutils function localy everything worked fine. The logs are also unhelpful (exit code 1 != 0).

A

I think the clue might be in here:

Traceback (most recent call last):
Command failed with exit code 1
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/pyperformance/data-files/benchmarks/bm_docutils/run_benchmark.py", line 57, in <module>
    runner.bench_time_func("docutils", bench_docutils, DOC_ROOT)
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_runner.py", line 462, in bench_time_func
    return self._main(task)
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_runner.py", line 427, in _main
    bench = self._worker(task)
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_runner.py", line 401, in _worker
    run = task.create_run()
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_worker.py", line 284, in create_run
    self.compute()
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_worker.py", line 348, in compute
    WorkerTask.compute(self)
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_worker.py", line 273, in compute
    self.compute_warmups_values()
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_worker.py", line 255, in compute_warmups_values
    self._compute_values(self.values, args.values)
  File "/home/runner/work/pyperformance/pyperformance/venv/cpython3.10-6b3a2b4e6fa6-compat-c0d88e07feb9/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyperf/_worker.py", line 72, in _compute_values
    raise ValueError("benchmark function returned zero")
ValueError: benchmark function returned zero

In some case during the test run, the new benchmark function is returning a time that is zero.

You could try to reproduce this locally by running:

python -u -m pyperformance.tests

Copy link
Contributor

@mdboom mdboom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm approving this pending CI passing.

Co-authored-by: Michael Droettboom <mdboom@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@mdboom mdboom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

@ericsnowcurrently / @gvanrossum you've both committed recently, if you've any time for a review of this PR I'd appreciate it! Thanks

A

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

Can I bow out? Eric and/or Mike will be able to review this.

elapsed = 0
for file in doc_root.rglob("*.txt"):
file_contents = file.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
t0 = time.perf_counter_ns()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
t0 = time.perf_counter_ns()
t0 = pyperf.perf_counter()

"output_encoding": "unicode",
"report_level": 5,
})
elapsed += time.perf_counter_ns() - t0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
elapsed += time.perf_counter_ns() - t0
elapsed += pyperf.perf_counter() - t0

@mdboom
Copy link
Contributor

mdboom commented Aug 1, 2022

@AA-Turner: It would be great to have this. Any chance you have time to address @kumaraditya303's concerns?

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

@mdboom / @kumaraditya303 sorry for the delay here, please may you re-review?

A

@kumaraditya303 kumaraditya303 self-requested a review August 29, 2022 17:18
@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently merged commit 864c3d9 into python:main Sep 6, 2022
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.

5 participants