Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
2.1%-14% regression in scheduler.tough_scheduling_cases at 410387:410419 |
||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionLooks like this was caused by a CL which landed ~410162-410185 and was reverted
,
Aug 9 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004797983866918320
,
Aug 9 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@410402 0.105389 0.00164081 18 good chromium@410403 0.105646 0.00157256 18 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_retina_perf_bisect Bug ID: 635907 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests scheduler.tough_scheduling_cases Test Metric: queueing_durations/queueing_durations Relative Change: 1.12% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_retina_perf_bisect/builds/1556 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004797983866918320 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5284719873228800 | 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!
,
Aug 10 2016
Closing since this is a regression to the mean. |
|||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by rmcilroy@chromium.org
, Aug 9 2016