Repository navigation
bench(transport/recovery): benchmark SentPackets::take_ranges - #2253
Conversation
In order to benchmark `SentPackets::take_ranges`, we need to make `packets`, `recovery` and `sent` public modules, feature flagged with `bench`. Public modules have stricter clippy lints. This commit addresses the failing clippy lints.
SentPackets::take_ranges
Failed Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
All resultsSucceeded Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
Unsupported Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2253 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.37% 95.37% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 112 112
Lines 36569 36567 -2
==========================================
- Hits 34879 34875 -4
- Misses 1690 1692 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Benchmark resultsPerformance differences relative to 2fb1a3b. coalesce_acked_from_zero 1+1 entries: No change in performance detected. time: [99.127 ns 99.456 ns 99.792 ns]
change: [-0.7973% -0.2040% +0.3593%] (p = 0.52 > 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 3+1 entries: No change in performance detected. time: [117.40 ns 117.80 ns 118.21 ns]
change: [-0.3926% +0.3106% +1.1108%] (p = 0.47 > 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 10+1 entries: No change in performance detected. time: [116.84 ns 117.25 ns 117.77 ns]
change: [-0.4678% +0.0552% +0.6559%] (p = 0.85 > 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 1000+1 entries: No change in performance detected. time: [97.298 ns 97.425 ns 97.568 ns]
change: [-0.9875% -0.1627% +0.6617%] (p = 0.70 > 0.05)
RxStreamOrderer::inbound_frame(): Change within noise threshold. time: [112.08 ms 112.13 ms 112.19 ms]
change: [-0.2810% -0.2128% -0.1444%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
SentPackets::take_ranges:time: [157.04 µs 157.66 µs 158.19 µs] transfer/pacing-false/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected. time: [26.773 ms 27.732 ms 28.709 ms]
change: [-4.9717% -0.3361% +4.7053%] (p = 0.89 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-true/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected. time: [34.248 ms 35.979 ms 37.716 ms]
change: [-5.6813% +0.8108% +7.8947%] (p = 0.82 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-false/same-seed: No change in performance detected. time: [25.507 ms 26.322 ms 27.148 ms]
change: [-6.0300% -1.9772% +2.3137%] (p = 0.37 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-true/same-seed: No change in performance detected. time: [40.788 ms 42.861 ms 44.966 ms]
change: [-7.0481% -0.9421% +6.0606%] (p = 0.79 > 0.05)
1-conn/1-100mb-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. Download)/client: Change within noise threshold. time: [927.21 ms 935.87 ms 944.65 ms]
thrpt: [105.86 MiB/s 106.85 MiB/s 107.85 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-3.2439% -1.9554% -0.6187%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+0.6226% +1.9943% +3.3527%]
1-conn/10_000-parallel-1b-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. RPS)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [317.91 ms 321.20 ms 324.53 ms]
thrpt: [30.813 Kelem/s 31.133 Kelem/s 31.455 Kelem/s]
change:
time: [-1.8306% -0.3840% +0.9605%] (p = 0.58 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.9513% +0.3854% +1.8647%]
1-conn/1-1b-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. HPS)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [33.510 ms 33.685 ms 33.868 ms]
thrpt: [29.527 elem/s 29.687 elem/s 29.842 elem/s]
change:
time: [-1.4493% -0.6925% +0.0786%] (p = 0.08 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.0785% +0.6974% +1.4707%]
1-conn/1-100mb-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. Upload)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [1.6664 s 1.6865 s 1.7076 s]
thrpt: [58.561 MiB/s 59.295 MiB/s 60.010 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-3.3421% -1.6807% +0.0839%] (p = 0.06 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.0838% +1.7095% +3.4577%]
Client/server transfer resultsTransfer of 33554432 bytes over loopback.
|
martinthomson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's possible that I'm confused. I'm sure that you'll work it out.
Co-authored-by: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Inden <[email protected]>
This pull request extracts the benchmark from #2245.
I suggest we merge here first. We can then compare #2245 against its baseline on
main.Note the second separate commit, addressing clippy lints only (82ef97e).