Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
22.6% regression in page_cycler_site_isolation.basic_oopif at 393425:393444 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
May 18 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@393424 2996.83 151.612 18 good chromium@393444 3037.29 87.4978 18 bad Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect Bug ID: 612858 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler_site_isolation.basic_oopif Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time Relative Change: 2.96% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/172 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9012307923965491744 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5782396050341888 | 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!
,
Jun 1 2016
Moving this nonessential bug to the next milestone. For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot
,
Jul 3 2016
One alert; looks like noise; not reproduced. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by majidvp@chromium.org
, May 18 2016