Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
19.5%-94% regression in performance_browser_tests at 378221:378247 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Mar 1 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because The metric values for the initial "good" and "bad" revisions do not represent a clear regression. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. === Warnings === The following warnings were raised by the bisect job: * Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Value Std. Dev. Num Values Good? chromium@378220 35.773157 0.24488 12 good chromium@378247 35.678983 0.102632 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 591085 Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu Test Metric: TabCapturePerformance_comp_gpu_novsync/Capture Relative Change: 0.63% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6356 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9019374251047836048 | O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq | X | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback, | / \ | file a bug with label Cr-Tests-AutoBisect. Thank you!
,
Mar 1 2016
Alert has now recovered back down to previous levels now; it looks like it might be starting to spike up again in the most recent results; a separate bug should be filed for that. Meanwhile it's worth noting that the bisect job did not reproduce a regression. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by qyears...@chromium.org
, Mar 1 2016