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

ci: Enable caching #702

Merged

Conversation

nicholasbishop
Copy link
Member

Now that most jobs are on the stable channel, enabling caching should be more effective than it would have been on nightly.

Checklist

  • Sensible git history (for example, squash "typo" or "fix" commits). See the Rewriting History guide for help.
  • Update the changelog (if necessary)

@@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ jobs:
- name: Checkout sources
uses: actions/checkout@v3

- uses: Swatinem/rust-cache@v2
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should use an approach as in https://github.com/rust-osdev/multiboot2/blob/main/.github/workflows/_build-rust.yml#L52 instead.

The solution you picked for caching only caches dependencies and only works reliably with a Cargo.lock file, as the README says. https://github.com/Swatinem/rust-cache

Hence, I'm in favor of a solution as in the Multiboot2 crate.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd like to use a prebuilt solution if possible (easier to read the CI config then, and hopefully simpler to maintain), so I'd like to carefully check that Swatinem/rust-cache really doesn't meet our needs.

That's a good point about Cargo.lock, but we could probably just check in Cargo.lock. The Cargo FAQ recommends against it, but I've often seen that recommendation debated. See rust-lang/cargo#8728 for example. Alternatively, we could skip checking in Cargo.lock and see how much difference it makes for us in practice. We have a nightly CI run, and I think we might find that does a decent job of initializing our caches so that PR runs are fast (which is probably when we will actually notice and care about CI time).

As to only caching dependencies, I think that's fine. rust-cache makes the claim that caching incremental builds of the crate itself is generally not effective, and I find that convincing. Caching the deps used by xtask in particular is what will really save a lot of CI time I think.

Regarding total space used by the cache:

gh api \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
  -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" \
  /repos/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/actions/cache/usage

{
  "full_name": "rust-osdev/uefi-rs",
  "active_caches_size_in_bytes": 5848673391,
  "active_caches_count": 19
}

So about 5.5GiB currently in use for this project. That seems fine right?

Lastly, I tried running the CI on this PR, then running it a second time. All the jobs with the cache enabled ran faster. That seems like pretty strong evidence to me that the cache is working as intended. On the left is the first run without an up-to-date cache, and on the right is the run with a good cache:
image

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have a few ideas I like to try out, ok? I think, we can have a neat and simpler solution for everything.. let's see.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have a few ideas I like to try out, ok? I think, we can have a neat and simpler solution for everything.. let's see.

Hm, I tested something like in the multiboot2 repo: one single big workflow that covers all the building, style checks, unit testing and integration tests that has a lot of configure options.

The outcome is a big feature-creep, semi-working variant.

@@ -36,6 +38,8 @@ jobs:
- name: Checkout sources
uses: actions/checkout@v3

- uses: Swatinem/rust-cache@v2
Copy link
Contributor

@phip1611 phip1611 Mar 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

additionally: once we set up caching, we need one task per toolchain that runs first and fills the cache. Otherwise, caching is ineffective and produces many GBs of artifacts on GitHub but we only have a 10GB limit. I experienced that in the multiboot2 crate. The pipeline there looks like this:

image

Copy link
Contributor

@phip1611 phip1611 Mar 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Otherwise, caching is ineffective and produces many GBs of artifacts on GitHub but we only have a 10GB limit.

My concern here is only that the same cache is uploaded multiple times.. simultaneously by every job as for every new change to the dependencies, they all do perform the cargo install in parallel.

Now that most jobs are on the stable channel, enabling caching should be more
effective than it would have been on nightly.
@nicholasbishop nicholasbishop force-pushed the bishop-enable-caching branch from e419f0f to 1d46338 Compare March 25, 2023 15:03
@phip1611
Copy link
Contributor

phip1611 commented Mar 25, 2023

Could you please check the times with and without cache with the cargo.lock now being part of the tree and present the results in this PR?

If it works, sure, why not. A "pretty good" solution with low effort is probably better than an over-engineered solution (as done in the Multiboot2 crate) that takes us much time. :)

@nicholasbishop
Copy link
Member Author

Very similar timings to before: https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/actions/runs/4519831136

I think the addition of Cargo.lock doesn't make an immediate difference, it's more of an over-time thing as dependent crates release semver-compat updates that invalidate the cache.

@nicholasbishop nicholasbishop merged commit 936c4e1 into rust-osdev:main Mar 25, 2023
@nicholasbishop nicholasbishop deleted the bishop-enable-caching branch March 25, 2023 16:49
@phip1611
Copy link
Contributor

phip1611 commented Apr 2, 2023

image

Looks to me as the cache doesn't work as efficient as it should.. There are way to many cache regenerations although the dependencies didn't change.

@nicholasbishop
Copy link
Member Author

The rust-build-feature_permutations seems expected since that's nightly Rust. It'll be invalidated every day.

I'm unsure why the rust-test one was invalidated more recently than the rest, that's odd.

Overall it seems like the cache is working well, our PR runs are faster (except often for the Windows job, which seems stubbornly slow.) Are there specific runs of the action you can link to that seem slower than expected?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants