[telemetry] Add @RunOnBuildMastersNamed support

tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py

Index: tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py
diff --git a/tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py b/tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py
index d187024a595adef921f0906bc7edfacd2a0fadd0..14749a2843b6198decdb3af743784590f995523e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py
+++ b/tools/perf/benchmarks/netsim_top25.py
@@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ class NetsimTop25(test.Test):
     'pageset_repeat': '5',
     }
 
+  @staticmethod
+  def CanRunOnBot(bot_properties):
+    return bot_properties.master_name in ['default', 'chromium.perf']

[bulach, 2013/07/09 10:07:32]

IMHO, sprinkling this "CanRunOnBot" makes it difficult to do the "slave-level
sharding": it's going to be hard to check that benchmarks A, B and C are running
in slave X, but D and E are running in slave Y..

I'd prefer to see this as pure data, like a json config saying something like:

{
  "BENCHMARK_A": {"slaves": [MAC_SLAVE_1, LINUX_SLAVE_1]},
  "BENCHMARK_B": {"slaves": [MAC_SLAVE_2, LINUX_SLAVE_2]},
  "BENCHMARK_C": {"master": FOO_MASTER},
}

I don't have strong feelings whether the keys should be BENCHMARK or SLAVE,
whatever makes it more compact...

but my point is that the benchmarks themselves should not know about bot: that's
configuration data for the test_runner itself to deal with.. wdyt?

+
+
   def __init__(self):
     super(NetsimTop25, self).__init__()
     self.test.clear_cache_before_each_run = True