Skip to content

Add Rust for Linux auto CI job #125209

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 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2024
Merged

Add Rust for Linux auto CI job #125209

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2024

Conversation

Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

@Kobzol Kobzol commented May 17, 2024

This PR adds an auto CI job that checks if Rust for Linux (RfL) still compiles with the latest version of the compiler and the standard library. If not, we should ideally ping the RfL ping group.

try-job: rfl

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 17, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Kobzol Kobzol changed the title WIP: test Rust for Linux in PR CI Add Rust for Linux auto CI job May 21, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@ojeda ojeda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this again! Some more comments/thoughts below...

I guess depending on how things go, i.e. how many failures we get and where they fail most, we could consider reducing or increasing the scope.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kobzol commented May 26, 2024

I think that the last thing required here is to select some reasonable initial commit. @ojeda any suggestions? I tried the commit that you have sent me before, but it was not found in the repo I think (maybe git just couldn't work with the shorter SHA though).

Is there any more up-to-date commit that I could use instead of master?

@ojeda
Copy link
Contributor

ojeda commented May 26, 2024

I tried the commit that you have sent me before, but it was not found in the repo I think (maybe git just couldn't work with the shorter SHA though).

The commit exists, but you probably need something like:

mkdir linux
git -C linux init
git -C linux remote add origin https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
git -C linux fetch --depth 1 origin 8f5b5f78113e881cb8570c961b0dc42b218a1b9e
git -C linux checkout FETCH_HEAD

instead of --branch. Another way is using the archive URL, e.g. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/archive/8f5b5f78113e.tar.gz.

Also, later today Linus will likely tag v6.10-rc1, which we could also use.

@ojeda
Copy link
Contributor

ojeda commented May 26, 2024

Is there any more up-to-date commit that I could use instead of master?

Not sure what you mean, master is the latest in Linus' (and generally should not be used, since it will move). Do you mean something in the RFL repository?

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kobzol commented May 26, 2024

Not sure what you mean, master is the latest in Linus' (and generally should not be used, since it will move). Do you mean something in the RFL repository?

Sorry, I meant "what is the most up-to-date commit SHA that works with RfL". master is not a stable ref, ofc.

@ojeda
Copy link
Contributor

ojeda commented May 26, 2024

Both should work (i.e. the one I gave you as well as the current master, i.e. c13320499ba0efd93174ef6462ae8a7a2933f6e7).

@ojeda
Copy link
Contributor

ojeda commented May 26, 2024

If you want to use the RFL repository as the base URL, I can push those commits there too.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d402830): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.3% [2.5%, 6.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 5.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
5.9% [2.9%, 7.7%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 675.838s -> 673.509s (-0.34%)
Artifact size: 320.09 MiB -> 320.06 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 10, 2024
@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jun 10, 2024

Only adds a new CI job and does not change the compiler @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jun 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants