New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 615834 link

Starred by 0 users

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Jun 2016
Cc:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

12.2% regression in page_cycler.basic_oopif at 395882:395965

Project Member Reported by primiano@chromium.org, May 30 2016

Issue description

Both the ref and non-ref jumped.
Either the machine was re-imaged or this is a side-effect of https://codereview.chromium.org/2008073002
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=615834

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg7PqesAoM


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

chromium-rel-win7-single
Cc: charliea@chromium.org
Charlie, could this be a side-effect of https://codereview.chromium.org/2008073002 ?
The ref went up as well.
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 30 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  183273  1031.78  18  good
chromium@395965  183382  1116.43  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 615834

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: vm_working_set_final_size_total/vm_working_set_final_size_total
Relative Change: 0.03%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6549
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9011238842907097760


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5830388635664384

| 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!

Comment 4 by charliea@google.com, May 31 2016

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this benchmark: could you explain what a regression would mean? 

I really doubt that the CL caused any sort of a regression. It should have been a no-op in terms of how we import traces, and if anything I'd expect a complete test breakage for all TBMv2 benchmarks as opposed to a regression in a single one.
Automatic message: All alerts recovered.
Graphs: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=615834
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
Alert seems recovered both on ref and not ref. No idea what it is.
Looks like it wasn't even a catapult CL (so, sorry Charlie, I barked at the wrong tree). there isn't any catapult change in the improvement slope. #mysteriesoflife

Sign in to add a comment