Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
16.4% regression in blink_perf.bindings at 397144:397180 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jun 3 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@397143 27.0198 0.209164 18 good chromium@397180 26.9936 0.227759 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 616938 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings Test Metric: serialize-long-string/serialize-long-string Relative Change: 0.31% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6565 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9010926829258564592 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5834806143746048 | 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 4 2016
Graph has recovered. Closing. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by briander...@chromium.org
, Jun 2 2016