Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
33.6%-37.7% regression in blink_perf.paint at 388062:388123 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Apr 29 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Temporarily disable float empty-phase optimization Author : wangxianzhu Commit description: BUG= 603910 Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1897823004 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#388102} Commit : e7f53da593a30c18884a215115a99e276c3f73bd Date : Tue Apr 19 00:57:42 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@388095 57.8616 3.80395 12 good chromium@388100 204.698 476.498 11 good chromium@388101 57.2987 1.1694 5 good chromium@388102 78.1636 1.32981 12 bad <-- chromium@388104 79.3316 3.64685 12 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_hdd_perf_bisect Bug ID: 604907 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.paint Test Metric: large-table-background-change-with-invisible-collapsed-borders/large-table-background-change-with-invisible-collapsed-borders Relative Change: 38.54% Score: 0.0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_hdd_perf_bisect/builds/505 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9014084249964044640 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5278915791159296 | 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 29 2016
wangxianzhu: the numbers reported by the bisect are kind of crazy, but checking the graph, it looks like disabling float empty-phase optimization regressed this and then "Mark layer needsPaintPhaseFloat if a LayoutBlockFlow contains float" got the performance back to previous levels: https://codereview.chromium.org/1899063002 Is that correct? If so, I think it's fine to mark this fixed.
,
Apr 29 2016
Yes.
,
May 19 2016
Following up on the "bad_bisect" link: bisect looks okay. There was one massive outlier that made r388100 have a really high mean (one of the values was 1640.9740909090908) but the statistical bisect algorithm is resistant to one-off outliers and the bisect ran correctly. If you look at the Telemetry JSON output, it does show a weird spike in the test results. https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_hdd_perf_bisect/builds/505/steps/Working%20on%20revision%20chromium%40388100.Waiting%20for%20chromium%40388100.Reading%20chartjson%20results%20%282%29/logs/json.output |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by sullivan@chromium.org
, Apr 19 2016