Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Staffan,

That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, 
if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers.

Here's the file counts for where we are now

corba 1192
hotspot 4761
jaxp 2883
jaxws 3748
jdk 22776
langtools 6785

-- Jon

On 12/02/2014 02:27 PM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> As part of the initial set of benchmarks we hope to add as part of 
> this JEP I'm guessing it will be around 200-300 files. This would grow 
> overtime, but I believe we won't see tens of thousands of files, it is 
> more likely it will be something like a 1000 files.
>
> //Staffan
>
> On 12/02/2014 02:14 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Staffan,
>>
>> I would also ask how many files are eventually likely to be involved.
>>
>> If it's tens of files up to low hundreds, then a top level dir makes 
>> sense.
>>
>> If it's tens of thousands of files, then a separate repo makes more 
>> sense.
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2014 02:08 PM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Agree, there is no major reason this needs to be a new repository, 
>>> as I mentioned in the 3 options below it would work well without it. 
>>> The main thing I want to achieve is that the benchmarks are located 
>>> on the top level. The suite will contain benchmarks for all parts of 
>>> the JDK so having it in either jdk or hotspot doesn't feel like it 
>>> makes sense. If people agree on having it as folder in the top level 
>>> JDK repository I'm perfectly fine with that.
>>>
>>> As for building it will most likely not be of the general build 
>>> process for building the JDK (do not want to increase the 
>>> compilation time for anyone not requiring the benchmark suite). It 
>>> would have its own target 'build-microbenchmark' which would depend 
>>> on 'exploded-image', but not the reverse.
>>>
>>> //Staffan
>>>
>>> On 12/02/2014 01:23 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>> Staffan,
>>>>
>>>> Having all the benchmarks located in a single place makes sense to 
>>>> me, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they need their own 
>>>> repository, in the forest.
>>>>
>>>> If I can build, run, and test ( usual development cycle ) without 
>>>> any dependency on these benchmarks, or their infrastructure, 
>>>> essential working with a partial forest ( without the ‘benchmark’ 
>>>> repository ), then I can see the possible value in having a 
>>>> separate repository ( so I can skip cloning and updating it ). But, 
>>>> I’m not sure if that is a reasonable justification for a new 
>>>> repository, as it is probably at odds with your goals, or maybe not?
>>>>
>>>> -Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 2 Dec 2014, at 19:53, Staffan Friberg 
>>>> <staffan.friberg at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> (Adding the jdk9-dev list to increase the visibility of the 
>>>>> discussion)
>>>>>
>>>>> With the multiple sub-repository commit mechanism improved I 
>>>>> believe this might be less of an issue. JPRT can push JDK and HS 
>>>>> changes at together and the same functionality should be possible 
>>>>> to use for this as well. I wonder if the test issue earlier was 
>>>>> that it was a completely separate repository outside of the JDK 
>>>>> forest, and less of an issue when being part of the same forest as 
>>>>> the JDK source code. Perhaps someone from SQE can chime?
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise the main reason for having a separate sub-repository on 
>>>>> the top level is making it easier to find what benchmarks are 
>>>>> available and have a single place to add new once avoid any risk 
>>>>> of name duplication. JMH is superb in filtering during execution 
>>>>> during runtime so running just a single test or a group of tests 
>>>>> is very straight forward and the recommended way, rather than 
>>>>> having multiple benchmark JARs. It also makes the build process 
>>>>> easier as the building can be done using a single Makefile and a 
>>>>> single benchmark JAR (actually two, one for JDK 8 compatible tests 
>>>>> and one for JDK 9) that can be picked up by automatic performance 
>>>>> testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Staffan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/02/2014 06:48 AM, roger riggs wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Staffan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An earlier issue was keeping tests in sync with the code under 
>>>>>> test, hence
>>>>>> the use of test directories within each repository.
>>>>>> I think a structure in which the benchmarks for some function and 
>>>>>> the function
>>>>>> itself are in the same repository that is easier to understand 
>>>>>> and maintain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $.02, Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/1/2014 7:08 PM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As part of adding Microbenchmarks to the OpenJDK source tree, 
>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand how we best would add the benchmark 
>>>>>>> sources to the existing OpenJDK tree structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the microbenchmark suite will cover all parts of the JDK, 
>>>>>>> covering HotSpot, JDK libraries and Nashorn, it would be 
>>>>>>> preferred to add the microbenchmark directory as a new top level 
>>>>>>> directory. Something similar to the following structure. Having 
>>>>>>> "benchmark" as the top-level directory would allow us to later 
>>>>>>> add different types of benchmarks without colliding with the 
>>>>>>> microbenchmark suite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <openjdk-root>/
>>>>>>>    benchmark/microbenchmark/...
>>>>>>>    hotspot/...
>>>>>>>    jdk/...
>>>>>>>    nashorn/...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With this as the premise I can see the following 3 options for 
>>>>>>> how this could be added to the source code layout
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Part of jdk-root repository
>>>>>>>      * Only makes sense if we want to move in a direction with 
>>>>>>> fewer
>>>>>>>        trees (and eventually a single tree)
>>>>>>> 2. Part of another already existing tree
>>>>>>>      * Not sure if this is possible without converting and 
>>>>>>> moving the
>>>>>>>        directory to a subdirectory of that tree
>>>>>>> 3. New tree in the forest/tree structure
>>>>>>>      * Most logical option as it follows the current setup and 
>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone have any comments and/or concerns on the suggested 
>>>>>>> directory location and the tree structure in option 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would the build-dev team be the right group to later help setup 
>>>>>>> a new tree if decided to be the right way to go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Staffan
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>