Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
4.3%-15.7% regression in performance_browser_tests at 385391:385418 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Apr 8 2016
Suspecting 587432023fe05823c2ecfbdc64d37657e76817f1 since it's the only thing touching media in the range. Bisect will confirm/deny. alokp, can you take a look?
,
Apr 8 2016
The patch referenced in comment #2 only touches chromecast files and that too is not enabled by default.
,
Apr 8 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@385397 22.875595 0.596885 18 good chromium@385402 22.708833 0.343519 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect Bug ID: 601798 Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu Test Metric: TabCapturePerformance_comp_gpu_novsync_webrtc/CaptureSucceeded Relative Change: 0.22% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/1907 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9015936723822581840 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=601798 | 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 component Tests>AutoBisect. Thank you!
,
Apr 12 2016
This has gone green again. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by rsch...@chromium.org
, Apr 8 2016