New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 630447 link

Starred by 2 users
Status: WontFix
Owner: ----
Closed: May 2017
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

46.7%-75.5% regression in startup.cold.blank_page at 406273:406312

Project Member Reported by rsch...@chromium.org, Jul 21 2016 
See the link to graphs below.
Project Member

Comment 4 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jul 22 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@406272  664.817  15.9436  12  good
chromium@406312  664.556  23.6566  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: first_non_empty_paint_time/first_non_empty_paint_time
Relative Change: 0.40%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/286
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006486474757844528


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5809445297192960

| 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!
Project Member

Comment 5 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jul 22 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@406023  787.533  13.266   12  good
chromium@406312  786.467  34.5181  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: first_non_empty_paint_time/first_non_empty_paint_time
Relative Change: 4.62%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/287
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006486366444086752


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5849497209405440

| 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 8 by rsch...@chromium.org, Jul 22 2016 

Hmm. Sent off some more, wider bisects.
Project Member

Comment 9 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jul 22 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@406023  529.65   10.9083  12  good
chromium@406312  534.667  6.10111  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: window_display_time/window_display_time
Relative Change: 0.87%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/295
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006418442903623216


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5812045497237504

| 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!
Project Member

Comment 10 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jul 22 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@406272  1399.08  12.8166  12  good
chromium@406312  1408.67  28.109   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: foreground_tab_request_start/foreground_tab_request_start
Relative Change: 1.35%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/294
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006418454119005040


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5900559672934400

| 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 13 by alexclarke@chromium.org, Jul 29 2016 

This metric is really noisy.  Trying a couple of new wider bisects with more iterations, not convinced they'll find anything however.
Project Member

Comment 14 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jul 29 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@406000  530.267  8.57834  12  good
chromium@406900  524.778  13.3603  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: window_display_time/window_display_time
Relative Change: 1.31%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/315
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005791591110884368


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5842050902130688

| 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!
Project Member

Comment 17 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 2 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@406000  291.7    30.7764  12  good
chromium@406900  294.778  26.801   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 630447

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests startup.cold.blank_page
Test Metric: messageloop_start_time/messageloop_start_time
Relative Change: 0.43%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/330
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005791576207122368


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5896124003516416

| 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 18 by qyears...@chromium.org, Aug 18 2016 

Perf sheriff ping: reminder to follow up on possible performance issues

Comment 19 by benjhayden@chromium.org, Oct 6 2016 

This doesn't look like a clear regression to me, either.

Want to close?

Comment 20 by sullivan@chromium.org, Oct 6 2016

Owner: ----
Perf sheriff fixit: removing owners from bugs owned by the sheriffs who filed them to clarify that the rotation triages the bugs.

Comment 21 by benhenry@google.com, Nov 22 2016

Status: Untriaged (was: Assigned)

Comment 22 by tdres...@chromium.org, May 18 2017

Status: WontFix (was: Untriaged)
These have recovered.
►

Sign in to add a comment