code review 7127062: misc/dashboard/builder: pass GOMAXPROCS through to test...

misc/dashboard/builder: pass GOMAXPROCS through to test process

Brad and I have discussed that we should have some builders running
with a GOMAXPROCS value other than the default. I had configured the
darwin-*-cheney builders to do this, but it looks like GOMAXPROCS
was not filtering down to the build process.

[dave_cheney.net, 2013-01-19 09:37:54]

Hello rsc@golang.org, adg@golang.org (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[minux1, 2013-01-19 09:41:08]

how about we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)?
i suppose it might catch more bugs.

[dave_cheney.net, 2013-01-19 09:45:04]

I'm fine with that provided it is not the default, if that is
agreeable, I can propose that as an alternate change.

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:41 PM, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:
> how about we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
> in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)?
> i suppose it might catch more bugs.

[bradfitz, 2013-01-19 16:27:10]

LGTM
 On Jan 19, 2013 1:37 AM, <dave@cheney.net> wrote:

> Reviewers: rsc, adg,
>
> Message:
> Hello rsc@golang.org, adg@golang.org (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),
>
> I'd like you to review this change to
> https://go.googlecode.com/hg/
>
>
> Description:
> misc/dashboard/builder: pass GOMAXPROCS through to test process
>
> Brad and I have discussed that we should have some builders running
> with a GOMAXPROCS value other than the default. I had configured the
> darwin-*-cheney builders to do this, but it looks like GOMAXPROCS
> was not filtering down to the build process.
>
> Please review this at
https://codereview.appspot.**com/7127062/<https://codereview.appspot.com/7127...
>
> Affected files:
>   misc/dashboard/builder/main.go
>
>
> Index: misc/dashboard/builder/main.go
> ==============================**==============================**=======
> --- a/misc/dashboard/builder/main.**go
> +++ b/misc/dashboard/builder/main.**go
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
>         "GOARM",
>         "GOHOSTARCH",
>         "GOHOSTOS",
> +       "GOMAXPROCS",
>         "PATH",
>         "TMPDIR",
>  }
>
>
>

[minux1, 2013-01-19 17:23:45]

Hi Brad, what's your opinion with my proposal:
we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)

[bradfitz, 2013-01-19 17:40:24]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Brad, what's your opinion with my proposal:
> we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
> in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)
>

I don't think it'll buy much.  I'm not against it, though.  I'd rather
start with just GOMAXPROCS=2 or 4 or something.

[minux1, 2013-01-19 18:04:13]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brad, what's your opinion with my proposal:
>> we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
>> in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)
>>
>
> I don't think it'll buy much.  I'm not against it, though.  I'd rather
> start with just GOMAXPROCS=2 or 4 or something.
>
my reason for random GOMAXPROCS testing is that in the past we have
dealt with some bugs that only happen at every specific GOMAXPROCS
settings. as dave's darwin builders are pretty fast, i'd suggest we adopt
fullung's test methodology of using random GOMAXPROCS.

My complete proposal is add an integer -maxgoprocs flag to gobuilder,
and on some powerful builders, we can set it to some large value (for
example, 100). when the value is greater than 1, the builder will choose
one from interval (1, n] as the GOMAXPROCS for each build.

[dave_cheney.net, 2013-01-20 08:57:51]

Here is what I have so far,

https://codereview.appspot.com/7099059

I'm going to set it up on my dawin bulders and see what it turns up

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:03 AM, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brad, what's your opinion with my proposal:
>>> we let the builder choose a random GOMAXPROCS
>>> in a suitable range automatically (enabled by an option)
>>
>>
>> I don't think it'll buy much.  I'm not against it, though.  I'd rather
>> start with just GOMAXPROCS=2 or 4 or something.
>
> my reason for random GOMAXPROCS testing is that in the past we have
> dealt with some bugs that only happen at every specific GOMAXPROCS
> settings. as dave's darwin builders are pretty fast, i'd suggest we adopt
> fullung's test methodology of using random GOMAXPROCS.
>
> My complete proposal is add an integer -maxgoprocs flag to gobuilder,
> and on some powerful builders, we can set it to some large value (for
> example, 100). when the value is greater than 1, the builder will choose
> one from interval (1, n] as the GOMAXPROCS for each build.

[minux1, 2013-01-20 09:03:06]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Dave Cheney <dave@cheney.net> wrote:

> Here is what I have so far,
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7099059
>
> I'm going to set it up on my dawin bulders and see what it turns up

Sure, let's wait and see.

[rsc, 2013-12-18 04:14:27]

R=close

(timed out)