-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Add SPEEDTEST
#10920
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
Merged
Merged
Add SPEEDTEST
#10920
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
# Speedtest | ||
`SPEEDTEST` is the tool we use to measure lint's performance, it works by executing the same test several times. | ||
|
||
It's useful for measuring changes to current lints and deciding if the performance changes too much. `SPEEDTEST` is | ||
accessed by the `SPEEDTEST` (and `SPEEDTEST_*`) environment variables. | ||
|
||
## Checking Speedtest | ||
|
||
To do a simple speed test of a lint (e.g. `allow_attributes`), use this command. | ||
|
||
```sh | ||
$ SPEEDTEST=ui TESTNAME="allow_attributes" cargo uitest -- --nocapture | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This will test all `ui` tests (`SPEEDTEST=ui`) whose names start with `allow_attributes`. By default, `SPEEDTEST` will | ||
iterate your test 1000 times. But you can change this with `SPEEDTEST_ITERATIONS`. | ||
|
||
```sh | ||
$ SPEEDTEST=toml SPEEDTEST_ITERATIONS=100 TESTNAME="semicolon_block" cargo uitest -- --nocapture | ||
``` | ||
|
||
> **WARNING**: Be sure to use `-- --nocapture` at the end of the command to see the average test time. If you don't | ||
> use `-- --nocapture` (e.g. `SPEEDTEST=ui` `TESTNAME="let_underscore_untyped" cargo uitest -- --nocapture`), this | ||
> will not show up. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
since the timing itself also takes some time to run, would it make sense to move the timing stuff out of the loop and divide the time taken by the number of iterations after the loop? the Instant::now().elapsed() overhead might also be negligible compared to how long a lint pass takes, so maybe this doesn't matter that much (from what I remember, it was around 40ns on the playground...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the usual way to micro benchmark is to time variable numbers of iterations, then do a linear regression, but this is clearly a macro benchmark, so don't worry about either loop or time measurement overhead.