Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
7.1% regression in thread_times.simple_mobile_sites at 407218:407324 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionHmm not sure this bisect will suceed. The regression is not sharp
,
Jul 26 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006080035976708192
,
Jul 26 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006079977239709696
,
Jul 26 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006079949880220464
,
Jul 26 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Support early associated interface binding on ChannelMojo Author : rockot Commit description: Changes the associated bindings implementation for ChannelMojo such that remote interfaces can be acquired immediately upon ChannelMojo construction rather than having to wait for connection on the IO thread. Simplifies the Channel bootstrapping process, removing a round-trip Init message (and in fact the entire IPC::mojom::Boostrap interface) since there's no need to actually exchange associated interface handles over the pipe. Instead both sides can assume the other will use a fixed, reserved endpoint ID for their IPC::mojom::Channel interface. This also removes the restriction that associated interfaces must be added to a Channel after Init. Instead the same constraints apply as with AddFilter: an associated interface, like a filter, may be added at any time as long as either Init hasn't been called OR the remote process hasn't been launched. The result of this CL is that any place it's safe to AddFilter, it's also safe to AddAssociatedInterface; and any place it's safe to Send, it's also safe to GetRemoteAssociatedInterface and begin using any such remote interface immediately. Remote interface requests as well as all messages to remote interfaces retain FIFO with respect to any Send calls on the same thread. Local interface request dispatch as well as all messages on locally bound associated interfaces retain FIFO with respect to any OnMessageReceived calls on the same thread. BUG=612500, 619202 Committed: https://crrev.com/e1037f997da9e1d44ca3b09d4ff32f0465673091 Committed: https://crrev.com/508da24622f957a01b076ccd058bfdccc79068a4 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2163633003 Cr-Original-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#406720} Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407050} Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407264} Commit : 0e4de5f9a519c6cd206448a10eccc7a535e3db64 Date : Fri Jul 22 21:20:12 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@407217 2.0074 0.0202094 8 good chromium@407244 2.04175 0.114339 8 good chromium@407258 2.0016 0.0137567 5 good chromium@407262 1.99598 0.0248371 5 good chromium@407263 2.01607 0.013471 5 good chromium@407264 2.10044 0.0160129 5 bad <-- chromium@407265 2.12542 0.0146409 5 bad chromium@407271 2.1086 0.0191814 8 bad chromium@407324 2.10366 0.0224519 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus6_perf_bisect Bug ID: 631423 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.simple_mobile_sites Test Metric: thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame Relative Change: 4.96% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus6_perf_bisect/builds/2341 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006080035976708192 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5882577248845824 | 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!
,
Jul 26 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Support early associated interface binding on ChannelMojo Author : rockot Commit description: Changes the associated bindings implementation for ChannelMojo such that remote interfaces can be acquired immediately upon ChannelMojo construction rather than having to wait for connection on the IO thread. Simplifies the Channel bootstrapping process, removing a round-trip Init message (and in fact the entire IPC::mojom::Boostrap interface) since there's no need to actually exchange associated interface handles over the pipe. Instead both sides can assume the other will use a fixed, reserved endpoint ID for their IPC::mojom::Channel interface. This also removes the restriction that associated interfaces must be added to a Channel after Init. Instead the same constraints apply as with AddFilter: an associated interface, like a filter, may be added at any time as long as either Init hasn't been called OR the remote process hasn't been launched. The result of this CL is that any place it's safe to AddFilter, it's also safe to AddAssociatedInterface; and any place it's safe to Send, it's also safe to GetRemoteAssociatedInterface and begin using any such remote interface immediately. Remote interface requests as well as all messages to remote interfaces retain FIFO with respect to any Send calls on the same thread. Local interface request dispatch as well as all messages on locally bound associated interfaces retain FIFO with respect to any OnMessageReceived calls on the same thread. BUG=612500, 619202 Committed: https://crrev.com/e1037f997da9e1d44ca3b09d4ff32f0465673091 Committed: https://crrev.com/508da24622f957a01b076ccd058bfdccc79068a4 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2163633003 Cr-Original-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#406720} Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407050} Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407264} Commit : 0e4de5f9a519c6cd206448a10eccc7a535e3db64 Date : Fri Jul 22 21:20:12 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@407217 1.57181 0.0176725 5 good chromium@407244 1.58162 0.0251726 8 good chromium@407258 1.58989 0.0337545 8 good chromium@407262 1.59136 0.0451104 8 good chromium@407263 1.55364 0.00648915 5 good chromium@407264 1.65944 0.0202336 8 bad <-- chromium@407265 1.67364 0.0185994 8 bad chromium@407271 1.68442 0.0448254 5 bad chromium@407324 1.66178 0.0123419 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus6_perf_bisect Bug ID: 631423 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.simple_mobile_sites Test Metric: thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame/http___www.ebay.co.uk_ Relative Change: 5.72% Score: 99.5 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus6_perf_bisect/builds/2343 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006079949880220464 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5342545240915968 | 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!
,
Jul 29 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@407217 1.26502 0.0493623 12 good chromium@407244 1.31612 0.130323 12 good chromium@407271 1.35399 0.0517857 12 bad chromium@407324 1.37195 0.0583518 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus6_perf_bisect Bug ID: 631423 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.simple_mobile_sites Test Metric: thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame/http___m.nytimes.com_ Relative Change: 10.35% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus6_perf_bisect/builds/2342 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006079977239709696 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5823078798458880 | 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!
,
Jul 29 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005837435779192480
,
Jul 29 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@407217 1.26502 0.0493623 12 good chromium@407244 1.31612 0.130323 12 good chromium@407271 1.35399 0.0517857 12 bad chromium@407324 1.37195 0.0583518 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus6_perf_bisect Bug ID: 631423 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.simple_mobile_sites Test Metric: thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame/http___m.nytimes.com_ Relative Change: 10.35% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus6_perf_bisect/builds/2342 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9006079977239709696 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5823078798458880 | 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 primiano@chromium.org
, Jul 26 2016