You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@tvm.apache.org by mo...@apache.org on 2022/02/09 10:03:16 UTC
[tvm-rfcs] branch main updated: @slow test RFC (#55)
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
mousius pushed a commit to branch main
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tvm-rfcs.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/main by this push:
new 9b6203a @slow test RFC (#55)
9b6203a is described below
commit 9b6203a743693ea65eef66137d48abfc75d79d77
Author: David Riazati <94...@users.noreply.github.com>
AuthorDate: Wed Feb 9 02:03:08 2022 -0800
@slow test RFC (#55)
Also see discussion in the pre-RFC: https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-ci-skip-slow-tests-on-prs/11910
Co-authored-by: driazati <dr...@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Sidebottom <ch...@arm.com>
---
0000-template.md | 2 +-
rfcs/0055-slow-tests.md | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md
index bb82e19..b815290 100644
--- a/0000-template.md
+++ b/0000-template.md
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Why should we *not* do this?
Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal.
A few examples of what this can include are:
-- Does this feature exist in other ML compilers or languages and discuss the experince their community has had?
+- Does this feature exist in other ML compilers or languages and discuss the experience their community has had?
- For community proposals: Is this done by some other community and what were their experiences with it?
- For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this?
diff --git a/rfcs/0055-slow-tests.md b/rfcs/0055-slow-tests.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5e971c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfcs/0055-slow-tests.md
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+- Feature Name: `slow_tests_decorator`
+- Start Date: 2022-01-26
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#55](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/55)
+
+# Summary
+
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Add a Python decorator to skip tests on PRs but run them on branches (e.g. `main`).
+
+# Motivation
+
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+A small subset of tests take up a large portion of the total test runtime in Pull Requests (PRs). This
+RFC proposes that we skip these tests on PRs where CI runtime is critical and
+run them only on `main`.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+CI runtime constantly plagues TVM developers with long iteration times, exacerbated
+by flakiness and difficult-to-reproduce steps. To reduce runtime, we can execute
+more work concurrently and increase usage of available resources, usually by
+parallelization within ([apache/tvm#9834](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/9834))
+or between ([apache/tvm#9733](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/9733)) CI jobs.
+Another way is to do less work, which is what this RFC proposes. By running some
+tests on `main` only, we still get some measure of coverage provided by these tests
+without burdening PR developers.
+
+The runtime savings of this change are potentially significant, as this gives us
+a black-box knob which we can manually tune over time to trade off between PR test
+coverage and PR test runtime. [This gist](https://gist.github.com/driazati/e009f09ff44c6bc91c4d95a8e17fd6f1)
+(see the "Details" below for a sample) shows a listing of TVM test runtime in descending
+order, showing the potential time savings (across all jobs) in CI of cutting
+off tests above an arbitrary runtime (not to propose use a cutoff, but just to
+demonstrate in broad strokes the potential impact of this change):
+
+```
+[cutoff=10.0s] Total savings (m): 419.95m by skipping 695 tests
+[cutoff=20.0s] Total savings (m): 338.27m by skipping 320 tests
+[cutoff=30.0s] Total savings (m): 291.5m by skipping 205 tests
+[cutoff=40.0s] Total savings (m): 251.59m by skipping 135 tests
+[cutoff=50.0s] Total savings (m): 222.56m by skipping 96 tests
+[cutoff=60.0s] Total savings (m): 203.3m by skipping 75 tests
+[cutoff=70.0s] Total savings (m): 192.68m by skipping 65 tests
+[cutoff=80.0s] Total savings (m): 181.56m by skipping 56 tests
+[cutoff=90.0s] Total savings (m): 171.45m by skipping 49 tests
+[cutoff=100.0s] Total savings (m): 160.36m by skipping 42 tests
+```
+
+<details>
+
+Top 20 slowest tests of https://gist.github.com/driazati/e009f09ff44c6bc91c4d95a8e17fd6f1
+
+```
+runtime (s) file test
+1044.31 tests/python/frontend/tensorflow/test_forward.py test_forward_broadcast_args
+697.41 tests/python/frontend/tensorflow/test_forward.py test_forward_broadcast_to
+624.77 tests/python/frontend/tensorflow/test_forward.py test_forward_ssd
+567.74 tests/python/frontend/tflite/test_forward.py test_all_elemwise
+433.44 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_upsampling.py test_upsampling3d
+329.4 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_conv2d_int8.py test_conv2d_nchw
+326.02 tests/python/frontend/pytorch/test_object_detection.py test_detection_models
+282.74 tests/python/frontend/tflite/test_forward.py test_forward_transpose_conv
+280.26 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_conv2d_hwnc_tensorcore.py test_conv2d_hwnc_tensorcore
+277.15 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_conv3d_transpose_ncdhw.py test_conv3d_transpose_ncdhw
+249.39 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_conv2d_NCHWc.py test_conv2d_NCHWc
+243.81 tests/python/relay/test_py_converter.py test_global_recursion
+227.9 tests/python/frontend/pytorch/test_forward.py test_segmentation_models
+194.23 tests/python/relay/test_op_level6.py test_topk
+183.41 tests/python/frontend/tensorflow/test_forward.py test_forward_ptb
+178.62 tests/python/relay/test_py_converter.py test_global_recursion
+171.25 tests/python/frontend/pytorch/qnn_test.py test_quantized_imagenet
+169.2 tests/python/frontend/tensorflow/test_forward.py test_forward_resnetv2
+169.13 tests/python/topi/python/test_topi_conv2d_int8.py test_conv2d_nhwc
+```
+
+</details>
+
+Usages of `@slow` will first be limited to manually inspected tests that have
+low flakiness and infrequent failures on PRs in general in order to have the
+least impact on test coverage on PRs. The relevant test owners will also need
+to approve of their tests being moved to `main` at first with `@slow`.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+A decorator `@tvm.testing.slow` will be added (see [apache/tvm#10057](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/10057)) that implements
+the above behavior. Skipping slow tests would be an opt-in, rather than opt-out.
+This way developers who don't read this RFC won't have to adjust their workflows
+at all to run these tests locally. There is also a need to run slow tests on PRs
+in some cases, such as fixing reverted commits or if a developer suspects their
+change would have a wide reaching impact. In this case, `@ci run slow tests` can
+be added to the PR body before tests are run in order to disable skipping slow tests.
+A similar mechanism could be implemented in C++ using [`GTEST_SKIP`](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/advanced.md#skipping-test-execution).
+
+Using a decorator has the advantage of being explicit compared to an automated system
+to detect and skip slow tests. Clicking through to the decorator’s short definition
+makes it clear what is going on so this shouldn’t add too much of a development burden.
+Slow tests run by default to minimize disruption but can be controlled by setting
+`SKIP_SLOW_TESTS=1`, which would affect all slow test filtering fixtures (in C++ and Python).
+
+An environment variable `SKIP_SLOW_TESTS=1` will be set in Jenkins on PRs. Branches,
+including `main` and `ci-docker-staging` will not have this flag set and will
+always run the full set of tests.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+The primary caveat is that tests that run on `main` may now fail due to PRs that
+were green when they were merged, so this will require some buy-in from all TVM
+developers. However, the runtime savings are significant (see below) enough to make
+this worth it. Developments like [apache/tvm#9554](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/9554) will make the revert process much
+smoother as well to minimize disruptions.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+This isn't a complete solution. Most PRs end up running lots of tests that the
+PR didn't affect at all. Ideally we would have to determine the dependency graph
+of PRs based solely on files changed, but this isn't generally possible without
+restricting Python and making big changes to the existing TVM build system.
+[testmon](https://testmon.org/) is another approach, which uses coverage data to
+determine which tests to run, though Python also makes this difficult to implement correctly.
+This could also be implemented at the human level, with developers tagging their
+PRs based on what they think should run, though this has a higher potential to
+miss certain tests. However, this run-what-changed future would be difficult to
+achieve.
+
+Other efforts involve looking into tests themselves to determine why they are slow.
+Often TVM's tests are running much more work than they actually intend to test
+(such as using entire off-the-shelf networks to test a few operators) in
+more of an integration test than a unit test. Replacing these types of test with
+a framework that makes it easier to test TVM passes and functionality in smaller
+chunks is related but orthogonal to this work, requiring significantly higher
+resources due to the need to implement testing infrastructure for passes and
+inspect the relevant tests (though it is on our roadmap in the near future).
+Over time as slow tests are manually debugged, `@slow` decorators could be removed.
+
+# Prior art
+
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+- Tensorflow skips long tests: https://www.tensorflow.org/community/contribute/tests#test_times_should_aim_for_half_of_test_size_timeout_to_avoid_flakes
+- PyTorch does essentially the same thing with a `@slow` decorator but maintains
+ an automatically updating list of slow tests to skip:
+ https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/master/torch/testing/_internal/common_utils.py#L748-L755
+- scikit-learn has a similar system for low-signal, slow tests: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/21645
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- What tests do we `@slow`? Based on discussion it seems like going down the list of slow tests one by one (at least to start), it is prudent to do a preliminary investigation to answer:
+
+ 1. What is this test? Should it be slow?
+ 2. How often does this test fail? If the test fails often, there is less of a case that it should be `@slow`-ed since it provides good signal to developers.
+ 3. Who relies on this test? Do they understand the implications of `@slow`?
+
+- Who will monitor `main` for PR-related breakages? What is the SLA on fixes? Recent additions such as [messaging Discord on `main` failures](https://github.com/tlc-pack/ci-monitoring) and keeping track of the last known good commit ([apache/tvm#10056](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/10056)) should make this easier.
+
+# Future possibilities
+
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+- Better communication in Jenkins job pages of which tests ran, which did not, and why
+- Different levels of tests. `main` is the most frequent step, but longer running tests could be moved out to nightly or even release level testing (though this makes debugging failures more difficult).
+- Gather test coverage data to get a basic idea of what code is being tested
+- Track per-test durations for commits and report on CI runs what the runtime difference of each PR is (so developers can easily see the burden of their change)
+