From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New "make benchmark" target Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:23:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87h679kftn.fsf@protonmail.com> <87frm5z06l.fsf@protonmail.com> <86msgdnqmv.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmfhxjce.fsf@protonmail.com> <86jzbhnmzg.fsf@gnu.org> <87o70txew4.fsf@protonmail.com> <871pxorh30.fsf@protonmail.com> <86wmfgm3a5.fsf@gnu.org> <87pll2fsj7.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28941"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , stefankangas@gmail.com, mattiase@acm.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 06 12:24:25 2025 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tUlDc-0007Py-VD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 12:24:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUlCi-0005j6-6S; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:23:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUlCf-0005ia-Cy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:23:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUlCe-0001Tu-4m; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:23:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=zEWacNNa6q06NZvOo5AaHGn2cnCLD1A5Hc/pAwv2ioY=; b=V4wGzKBJa+DR20T6rQiI 1ShcTxaLmQT5StYo4aNCOH3JQRhOYDDxroU3ykBj1unuqBBEXX6CS7p5GHRalgvTrqMAXNlYIET67 p9Wpx0ALLcuFAX0Qxi9dHhqB5aeNZjXRTJ6gGLFnZEL4T6hi08vZeHHx96BJ+mtcMiYqQRWY6ZfeQ 2rDmj7PogqfRvfxqeyLaKN2RylPqzdli1vjXB7IHbdQ6fXy0+K6Ap4ig1GNBnk8FgbhWCgITaOfYk lyic5hd1J3t8rr3zZrZ1OX+AgXz9VrDzql1hFYH9EfOMtMTdegYb3KqQY7cgsygpPRJqBd1+1gQJj WwbFYBMEEYbkkw==; Original-Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUlCc-0006TT-Hf; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:23:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87pll2fsj7.fsf@protonmail.com> (Pip Cet's message of "Sat, 04 Jan 2025 16:34:24 +0000") X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327733 Archived-At: Pip Cet writes: > In particular, as you (Andrea) correctly pointed out, it is sometimes > appropriate to use an average run time (or, non-equivalently, an average > speed) for reporting test results; the assumptions needed for this are > very significant and need to be spelled out explicitly. The vast > majority of "make benchmark" uses which I think should happen cannot > meet these stringent requirements. > > To put things simply, it is better to discard outliers (test runs which > take significantly longer than the rest). Averaging doesn't do that: it > simply ruins your entire test run if there is a significant outlier. > IOW, running the benchmarks with a large repetition count is very likely > to result in useful data being discarded, and a useless result. As mentioned, I disagree with having some logic put in place to arbitrarily decide which value is worth to be considered and which value should be discarded. If a system is producing noisy measures this has to be reported as error of the measure. Those numbers are there for some real reason and have to be accounted.