full build time regressed by ~10% on Tue Nov 15 |
||
Issue descriptionThe ToT bots all don't use goma and do clobber builds, so they have fairly stable build performance. All bots I just looked at regressed build perf by about 10% a week ago. Not clear if this is due to a chrome or a clang change. For one bot, I looked through all chrome and clang commits, but nothing jumped out. https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/stats/ClangToTLinux -> view source, look for "stepTimescompile" -> looks like this started in build 6978 -> https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTLinux/builds/6978 That has got_clang_revision 287040, the previous build has clang 286993 Same exercise for ClangToTWin(dbg) -> https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTWin%28dbg%29/builds/7106 clang range 287012:287071 Those two ranges intersect, which I guess is nice. `svn log -r287012:287040 https://nico@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project` doesn't print anything very interesting. Comparing https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTWin%28dbg%29/builds/7106/steps/compile/logs/stdio and https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTWin%28dbg%29/builds/7105/steps/compile/logs/stdio , the latter build does build a few more steps, but not 10% more. Diffing the output (after some massaging), the main difference is more irt_x86 and irt_x64 steps. Repeating the dance for https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTLinux/builds/6978/steps/compile/logs/stdio and https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.fyi/builders/ClangToTLinux/builds/6977/steps/compile/logs/stdio also shows a couple hundred more irt_ commands, so that's probably the cause. Not sure if this is a clang or a chrome thing, or if it's even actionable. Probably something started depending on some targets under the irt toolchain more, so this is probably a chromium-side regression. I don't see what introduced it. Dirk, do you see what might've caused this? (it might not even be a problem, but if it was unintentional...) (inglorion: just fyi, the analysis approach might be interesting to you since you've probably not seen it yet) (FWIW I looked at the windows build graph to check if https://codereview.chromium.org/2520863002/ helped with clang-cl build times at all. To my surprise, it apparently has no effect at all (?) sigbjorn rnk fyi)
,
Nov 28 2016
Let me know if you don't turn up anything on the clang side. FWIW, You can still get to the logs via milo: https://luci-milo.appspot.com/buildbot/chromium.fyi/ClangToTLinux/6978 https://luci-milo.appspot.com/buildbot/chromium.fyi/ClangToTLinux/6977 https://luci-milo.appspot.com/buildbot/chromium.fyi/ClangToTWin%28dbg%29/7106 https://luci-milo.appspot.com/buildbot/chromium.fyi/ClangToTWin%28dbg%29/7105
,
Nov 29 2016
> (FWIW I looked at the windows build graph to check if https://codereview.chromium.org/2520863002/ helped with clang-cl build times at all. To my surprise, it apparently has no effect at all (?) sigbjorn rnk fyi) ftr, seeing same locally.
,
Nov 16
I'm guessing we may as well close this as WontFix at this point :). |
||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||
Comment 1 by thakis@chromium.org
, Nov 23 2016