Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
4% regression in performance_browser_tests at 386840:386909 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Apr 15 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@386839 41.988539 0.174198 18 good chromium@386909 41.943322 0.188518 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 604014 Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu Test Metric: CastV2Performance_gpu_24fps/time_between_captures Relative Change: 0.32% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6468 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9015283990369629120 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=604014 | 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 22 2016
re-kicked bisect with modified range.
,
May 6 2016
Recovered. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by rsch...@chromium.org
, Apr 15 2016