Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
4% regression in page_cycler.basic_oopif at 391191:391208 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionLooks like cnn.com is the only clear regression here (~10%), and it dominates the overall result.
,
May 4 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 Std Dev N Good? chromium@391190 1039.45 193.669 17 good chromium@391208 1016.79 210.322 18 bad Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect Bug ID: 609123 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.basic_oopif Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time Relative Change: 1.77% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6470 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9013584252279938208 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5799282720899072 | 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!
,
May 6 2016
Only the cnn regression is noticeable, all others are almost as is. Closing, assuming it's a cnn page specific issue. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by mustaq@chromium.org
, May 4 2016