Skip to content
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

Reduce CI time #55

Closed
taiki-e opened this issue Dec 18, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Reduce CI time #55

taiki-e opened this issue Dec 18, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@taiki-e
Copy link
Owner

taiki-e commented Dec 18, 2022

The slowest job in our CI (build (nightly)) takes over an hour. This is a really annoying situation, so let's investigate if we can shorten the time.

ci1

ci2

ci3

@taiki-e
Copy link
Owner Author

taiki-e commented Dec 18, 2022

For now, my goal with this issue is to complete all jobs within 30 minutes. The following jobs currently violate this.

The only solution for san (..) may be to reduce the number of iterations in tests. see #55 (comment)
We are placing our integration tests in src/tests, so we will not be able to reduce the number of test binaries any further.

As for build (..), it is build-only, so I guess basically we need to reduce the number of builds.

taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2022
@taiki-e
Copy link
Owner Author

taiki-e commented Dec 18, 2022

As for san (..), testing in the debug build was taking more than twice as long as testing in the release build, mostly from doctests (note: test binaries will be created for each doctest), so I disabled doctests in san+debug builds.

  • san (address) -- 37m -> 21m
  • san (memory) -- 32m -> 16m
  • san (thread) -- 24m -> 17m

taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2022
Part of #55.

As mentioned in PRs in tokio and hyper, this is actually enough depth.
@taiki-e
Copy link
Owner Author

taiki-e commented Dec 19, 2022

As for build (..), aa210ee has improved the situation, but build (nightly) is still slow.

  • build (nightly) -- 1h -> 49m
  • build (nightly-2020-12-26) -- 34m -> 27m

taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 7, 2023
- x86 Windows targets have been tested in test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Also, we do not have Windows-specific code on x86.
- RISC-V no-std targets have been tested in tools/no-std.sh.
  Also, we do not have M/C-extension-specific code on RISC-V.
- Add x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx.
- Move builds for some targets to test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Targets for which we have architecture-specific code remain in the default targets list.

Related to #55.
taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 7, 2023
- x86 Windows targets have been tested in test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Also, we do not have Windows-specific code on x86.
- RISC-V no-std targets have been tested in tools/no-std.sh.
  Also, we do not have M/C-extension-specific code on RISC-V.
- Add x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx.
- Move builds for some targets to test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Targets for which we have architecture-specific code remain in the default targets list.

Related to #55.
taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 7, 2023
- x86 Windows targets have been tested in test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Also, we do not have Windows-specific code on x86.
- RISC-V no-std targets have been tested in tools/no-std.sh.
  Also, we do not have M/C-extension-specific code on RISC-V.
- Add x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx.
- Move builds for some targets to test jobs in GitHub Actions.
  Targets for which we have architecture-specific code remain in the default targets list.

Related to #55.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant