Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
1.2%-62.6% regression in smoothness.gpu_rasterization_and_decoding.image_decoding_cases at 397457:398066 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jun 9 2016
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author dpranke@chromium.org === Hi dpranke@chromium.org, the bisect results pointed to your CL below as possibly causing a regression. Please have a look at this info and see whether your CL be related. ===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Flip Linux bots on chromium.lkgr to GN. Author : dpranke Commit description: R=brettw@chromium.org, inferno@chromium.org BUG= 605732 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2006173002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#398038} Commit : 6864dbb0407a47f697901f70105d2c2c829c08bc Date : Mon Jun 06 16:05:51 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@398032 45.2673 6.38707 18 good chromium@398035 48.9372 7.49998 18 good chromium@398037 43.2888 2.96168 5 good chromium@398038 56.7873 2.42553 12 bad <-- Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 618676 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.top_25_smooth Test Metric: mean_input_event_latency/https___mail.google.com_mail_ Relative Change: 28.65% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6581 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9010327844000194848 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5325100564348928 | 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 9 2016
That CL wouldn't have affected those bots. Can we re-run the bisect again?
,
Jun 10 2016
Re-kicked with the Docs latency test which is a much cleaner regression to bisect.
,
Jun 27 2016
Kicked bisect again with a narrower range from http://test-results.appspot.com/revision_range?start=398031&end=398034 to see if it was from the V8 roll and to see if it can pick the offender within that. New bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9008674556393241728
,
Jul 6 2016
Moving this nonessential bug to the next milestone. For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot
,
Jul 6 2016
Kicked off several bisects on different tests/bots to see if any of them will complete successfully: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007881318046823696 https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007881251482421712 https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007881198754365024 https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007881165646610768
,
Jul 6 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Making cookies eviction quotas match spec Author : maksim.sisov Commit description: According to the section 3 and section 5 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-priority- 00#section-3, the old cookie monster implementation doesn't maintain priority quotas correctly. This CL makes sure there will always be at least 30 low priority cookies, 50 mid priority and 70 high priority cookies if there had been enough of them before the eviction. Please note, secure cookies are more important than non-secure per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-leave-secure-cookies-alone. A small example: if there are 70 cookies: 37 non-secure low priority and 33 secure low priority cookies, 37 non-secure cookies are deleted during the first round and other 3 secure low priority cookies are deleted during the following round preserving 30 low priority cookies according to the quota of those specific cookies. For a bigger example that fully complies with the implementation, check the unittests. Before the fix, the unittests were just adjusted to the behavior of cookies eviction. For example, if we take the following unittest: Round 1 => 10L; round 2 => 11M, 10L; round 3 => none. TestPriorityCookieCase(cm.get(), "11HN 10MN 20LN 110MN 20LN 10HN", 20U,109U, 21U, 150U, 0U); The problem here was that there were only 40 low priority cookies, but the quota was not preserved for those cookies. First, 10 low priority cookies were deleted and then more 10 low priority cookies were deleted leaving only 20 of them, which was less than the quota (30 low priority cookies). It happened because the eviction algorithm didn't know how many cookies of a specific priority were deleted and it had always started to delete all the cookies from the beginning of the container removing even those cookies that shouldn't have been deleted. After we land this CL, we can have cookies in any order and high priority cookies will be eventually deleted in order to avoid excess of high priority cookies by some applications within the same domain. Thus, after the eviction algorithm runs, we should have at least 30 low, 50 mid and 70 high priority cookies if we had sufficient amount of them in the beginning. BUG= 609550 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1976073002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#398049} Commit : fe1fea6df040fff38a3a4567e20a3d5847e83170 Date : Mon Jun 06 16:53:15 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@398014 22.3402 0.428997 5 good chromium@398032 22.4269 0.25292 5 good chromium@398041 22.1335 0.438768 5 good chromium@398046 22.4392 0.352764 5 good chromium@398048 21.8324 0.343497 5 good chromium@398049 23.2827 0.366862 5 bad <-- chromium@398050 23.6673 0.147831 5 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 618676 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.key_desktop_move_cases Test Metric: mean_frame_time/mean_frame_time Relative Change: 5.94% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6656 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007881165646610768 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5250327645782016 | 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! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by pmeenan@chromium.org
, Jun 9 2016