Resource Usage and Optimization Opportunities in Workflows of GitHub Actions
Islem Bouzenia, Michael Pradel
Abstract
Continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) has become a prevalent practice in software development. GitHub Actions is emerging as a popular platform for implementing CI/CD pipelines, called workflows, especially because the platform offers 2,000 minutes of computation for free to public repositories each month. To understand what these resources are used for and whether CI/CD could be more efficient, this paper presents the first comprehensive empirical study of resource usage and optimization opportunities of GitHub Action workflows. Our findings show that CI/CD imposes significant costs, e.g., $504 per year for an average paid-tier repository. The majority of the used resources is consumed by testing and building (91.2%), which is triggered by pull requests (50.7%), pushes (30.9%), and regularly scheduled workflows (15.5%). While existing optimizations, such as caching (adopted by 32.9% of paid-tier repositories), demonstrate a positive impact, they overall remain underutilized. This result underscores the need for enhanced documentation and tools to guide developers toward more resource-efficient workflows. Moreover, we show that relatively simple changes in the platform, such as deactivating scheduled workflows when repositories are inactive, could result in reductions of execution time between 1.1% and 31.6% over the impacted workflows. Overall, we envision our findings to help improve the resource efficiency of CI/CD pipelines. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Development frameworks and environments; Software libraries and repositories.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 28db0de2-6dea-4dfa-8460-d2cb8369f025Cited by top-tier papers4
- Testora: Using Natural Language Intent to Detect Behavioral RegressionsMichael PradelICSE 2026 · 1 citation
- Rechecking Recheck Requests in Continuous Integration: An Empirical Study of OpenStackYelizaveta Brus, Rungroj Maipradit, Earl T. Barr, Shane McIntoshASE 2025 · 1 citation
- PatchWeaver: Risk-Bounded Autonomous Vulnerability Remediation Under Change-Management PoliciesRui Li, Shuang CaoUSENIX Security 2026
- Names Are All You Need: Effective and Safe Regression Test Selection for PythonYou Wang, Michael Pradel, Zhongxin LiuISSTA 2026
Builds on7
- Configuration smells in continuous delivery pipelines: a linter and a six-month study on GitLabCarmine Vassallo, Sebastian Proksch, Anna Jancso, Harald C. Gall et al.FSE 2020 · 43 citations
- A cost-efficient approach to building in continuous integrationXianhao Jin, Francisco ServantICSE 2020 · 34 citations
- BUILDFAST: History-Aware Build Outcome Prediction for Fast Feedback and Reduced Cost in Continuous IntegrationBihuan Chen, Linlin Chen, Chen Zhang, Xin PengASE 2020 · 32 citations
- Lessons from Eight Years of Operational Data from a Continuous Integration Service: An Exploratory Case Study of CircleCIKeheliya Gallaba, Maxime Lamothe, Shane McIntoshICSE 2022 · 28 citations
- What helped, and what did not? An Evaluation of the Strategies to Improve Continuous IntegrationXianhao Jin, Francisco ServantICSE 2021 · 26 citations
Related papers
- Characterizing the Security of Github CI WorkflowsIgibek Koishybayev, Aleksandr Nahapetyan, Raima Zachariah, Siddharth Muralee et al.USENIX Security 2022
- How do Developers Talk about GitHub Actions? Evidence from Online Software Development CommunityYang Zhang, Yiwen Wu, Tingting Chen, Tao Wang et al.ICSE 2024 · 12 citations
- Action Required: A Mixed-Methods Study of Security Practices in GitHub ActionsYusuke Kubo, Fumihiro Kanei, Mitsuaki Akiyama, Takuro Wakai et al.NDSS 2026 · 3 citations
- Robbery on DevOps: Understanding and Mitigating Illicit Cryptomining on Continuous Integration Service PlatformsZhi Li, Weijie Liu, Hongbo Chen, XiaoFeng Wang et al.S&P 2022 · 19 citations
- ARGUS: A Framework for Staged Static Taint Analysis of GitHub Workflows and ActionsSiddharth Muralee, Igibek Koishybayev, Aleksandr Nahapetyan, Greg Tystahl et al.USENIX Security 2023
