Hi Chris, On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 11:59 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > > How are the nightly test machines identified? I went to look at my > > machine's test results and couldn't find any (for a while) because a new > > machine id had been set. I'd like to avoid creating new machine ids so > > could you please indicate what factors lead to one run of nightly test > > being viewed as a different machine? If you explain it, I'll add the > > explanation to the documentation. > > I don't recall the details, but I believe that all of the architecture, > base compiler version, nickname and probably other stuff factor into it.I talked with Jim about it off-list. He indicated that the factors are: Username, hardware, OS, machine name, nickname and gcc version.> > Upgrading the system compiler (in particular) can have a significant > impact on the performance results, so I think this behavior makes sense. > If you strongly disagree and want to change it, go for it.I had upgraded my Linux kernel from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18. I suggested to Jim that changes in the minor revision number of the operating system should not count as a new machine. He said he'd look into it when he has time. Its not a huge issue, I just didn't want to be incrementing the machine numbers needlessly and needed to know what it was based on. Reid.
That's an easy fix. However, I do need to merge data (correctly) based on the change. So it will take 3 or 4 wags. Cheers, -- Jim On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: >> I had upgraded my Linux kernel from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18. I suggested >> to Jim >> that changes in the minor revision number of the operating system >> should >> not count as a new machine. He said he'd look into it when he has >> time. >> Its not a huge issue, I just didn't want to be incrementing the >> machine >> numbers needlessly and needed to know what it was based on. > > Ok, seems reasonable. The nightly tester script probably shouldn't > be in > the business of trying to grok OS version #'s. Maybe OS version # > shouldn't be included at all. > > -Chris > > -- > http://nondot.org/sabre/ > http://llvm.org/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2417 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061018/5b653b13/attachment.bin>
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:43 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > > I had upgraded my Linux kernel from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18. I suggested to Jim > > that changes in the minor revision number of the operating system should > > not count as a new machine. He said he'd look into it when he has time. > > Its not a huge issue, I just didn't want to be incrementing the machine > > numbers needlessly and needed to know what it was based on. > > Ok, seems reasonable. The nightly tester script probably shouldn't be in > the business of trying to grok OS version #'s. Maybe OS version # > shouldn't be included at all.I think it needs to include it. Suppose someone used the same user ID, same nickname but changed the machine from Linux to Windows. Furthermore even a change like Linux 2.6 to Linux 2.8 could impact performance significantly so it should be regarded as a new machine. The complexity of dealing with the OS version #s is why Jim tabled the work for now. I agree, its an ugly mess that NightlyTest shouldn't be involved in. But I don't think the correct thing to do is remove OS version from the comparison altogether. I'd rather have the current functionality than OS not mattering at all. Reid.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Reid Spencer wrote:> I had upgraded my Linux kernel from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18. I suggested to Jim > that changes in the minor revision number of the operating system should > not count as a new machine. He said he'd look into it when he has time. > Its not a huge issue, I just didn't want to be incrementing the machine > numbers needlessly and needed to know what it was based on.Ok, seems reasonable. The nightly tester script probably shouldn't be in the business of trying to grok OS version #'s. Maybe OS version # shouldn't be included at all. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/