Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
8.7%-28.2% regression in smoothness.tough_path_rendering_cases at 408294:408319 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jul 29 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005812688406163664
,
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@408309 59.8835 2.2962 18 good chromium@408310 59.2116 2.92437 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 632647 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.gpu_rasterization.tough_filters_cases Test Metric: frame_times/http___rawgit.com_WebKit_webkit_master_PerformanceTests_Animometer_developer.html?test-interval_20_display_minimal_controller_fixed_frame-rate_50_kalman-process-error_1_kalman-measurement-error_4_time-measurement_performance_suite-name_Animometer_test-name_Focus_complexity_100 Relative Change: 3.61% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6748 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005812688406163664 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5779773339467776 | 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/9005806105298702448
,
Jul 29 2016
Might be a dupe of https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=632643 Trying another bisect.
,
Jul 29 2016
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author robliao@chromium.org === Hi robliao@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 : Revert of Reland: Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/ (patchset #2 id:20001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2185993003/ ) Author : robliao Commit description: Reason for revert: Build failure: FAILED: obj/device/geolocation/device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj ninja -t msvc -e environment.x64 -- "C:\b\depot_tools\win_toolchain\vs_files\95ddda401ec5678f15eeed01d2bee08fcbc5ee97\VC\bin\amd64\cl.exe" /nologo /showIncludes /FC @obj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj.rsp /c ..\..\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc /Foobj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj /Fdobj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.cc.pdb c:\b\build\slave\win64_trunk\build\src\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc(119): error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated c:\b\build\slave\win64_trunk\build\src\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc(119): warning C4267: 'argument': conversion from 'size_t' to 'int', possible loss of data Original issue's description: > Reland: Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/ > > Original CL was reverted because it broke Win Gyp Component-build > bot(s). This CL (PS2) defines the geolocation gyp component > correctly. > > Original CL description ------------------------------------------------ > Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/ > > This CL: > > - moves all of content/browser/geolocation to device/geolocation > - the public geolocation files in content/common/{browser, public} > are also relocated to device/geolocation > - the geolocation-specific unittests are compiled into > (already existing) device_unittests > - adds new fancy new device/geolocation BUILD.gn and > geolocation.gyp as well > - makes a component of geolocation (at least for gn) and that forces > adding geolocation_export.h (like other //device/ folders). > - Java Geolocation files are moved as well, and a new > geolocation_jni_registrar is added. > - classes are moved to device namespace. > > All paths and include/call sites updated, DEPS, BUILD.gn files, > gypi files etc. > > Some tricks: > - can't use BrowserThread::CurrentlyOn, etc; instead, the > task runner is cached on constructor and used for both thread > checking and PostTask()ing (a few unittest and wifi_data_provider* > needed that substitution). > - GeolocationServiceContext is moved to public/cpp so it can > be referenced from WebContentsImpl. > - MockLocationProvider.java is also moved to device/geolocation. > > BUG= 612334 > CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation > > TBR=pstew@chromium.org > rationale:device/geolocation depends on dbus and this triggers > a DEPS presubmit rule -- however, this CL adds no new dependencies, > hence moving on in the interest of speed (and avoiding more rebases). > > Committed: https://crrev.com/cc322ebcb1c911072c8dc4fc38d41c1a41c426b7 > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408272} TBR=pstew@chromium.org,mcasas@chromium.org # Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago. NOPRESUBMIT=true NOTREECHECKS=true NOTRY=true BUG= 612334 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2188933002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408303} Commit : 6a5f51a5304bdcff7eea91f71be843b72c160d94 Date : Thu Jul 28 01:20:55 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@408200 27.9717 0.135055 5 good chromium@408260 27.786 0.0780382 5 good chromium@408292 27.8549 0.178957 8 good chromium@408299 27.8226 0.141846 8 good chromium@408301 27.8948 0.180088 5 good chromium@408302 27.9911 0.108816 5 good chromium@408303 26.8682 0.326244 5 bad <-- chromium@408306 27.6446 1.96134 8 bad chromium@408319 28.3534 2.47336 8 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 632647 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.tough_path_rendering_cases Test Metric: frame_times/frame_times Relative Change: 3.47% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6753 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005806105298702448 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5816518395297792 | 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
Just sheriffing that day. Reassigning. My suspicion is that this is very likely the wrong CL for this regression.
,
Aug 1 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005541137291987616
,
Aug 1 2016
Lets try another bisect.
,
Aug 1 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Try again to flip official win builders to GN. Author : dpranke Commit description: We believe we've fixed the remaining known issues w/ the upload/ signing scripts, so it's time to try again. This affects: - chromium.perf - Win Builder - official.desktop - win - win64 - official.desktop.continuous - win beta - win stable - win trunk - win64 trunk (Though the beta and stable builders aren't actually affected and won't be until they are on M54). TBR=sebmarchand@chromium.org, brettw@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org BUG= 623659 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2187613004 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408318} Commit : e28fd5d84cebeb446e2c35cf6b766e35aa56ec5f Date : Thu Jul 28 02:44:20 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@408200 27.7837 0.088378 5 good chromium@408301 27.8662 0.108541 8 good chromium@408315 28.0227 0.219065 8 good chromium@408317 27.8737 0.124702 5 good chromium@408318 27.0364 0.278054 5 bad <-- chromium@408319 27.1871 0.277778 5 bad chromium@408322 27.6086 1.77218 8 bad chromium@408328 27.1862 0.365774 8 bad chromium@408352 27.0291 0.314711 5 bad chromium@408400 27.0354 0.258759 5 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 632647 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.tough_path_rendering_cases Test Metric: frame_times/frame_times Relative Change: 2.69% Score: 99.5 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6774 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005541137291987616 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5831460250976256 | 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 alexclarke@chromium.org
, Jul 29 2016