Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
5.1%-83.1% regression in smoothness.tough_webgl_cases at 395882:395965 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
May 27 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@395881 32.033 0.52559 18 good chromium@395965 31.9952 0.278974 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 615415 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.tough_filters_cases Test Metric: frame_times/http___letmespellitoutforyou.com_samples_svg_filter_terrain.svg Relative Change: 1.58% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6539 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9011495126537308864 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5887702189211648 | 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 27 2016
On the one test where we have a ref build, that moved too. So looks like it's a false regression. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by rsch...@chromium.org
, May 27 2016