New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 635930 link

Starred by 0 users

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Jul 2017
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression

Blocked on:
issue 636310
issue 639813



Sign in to add a comment

1%-1.2% regression in system_health.memory_mobile at 410333:410350

Project Member Reported by petrcermak@chromium.org, Aug 9 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 10 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410337  1119437  540.033  5  good
chromium@410338  1123430  1460.55  5  bad
chromium@410339  1124109  2322.33  5  bad
chromium@410340  1125190  4172.44  5  bad
chromium@410342  1124333  1277.52  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 0.44%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1509
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004795666280354432


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780247430037504

| 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!
Blockedon: 636310
Cc: machenb...@chromium.org oth@chromium.org rmcilroy@chromium.org hpayer@chromium.org neis@chromium.org verwa...@chromium.org
Components: Blink>JavaScript
Owner: hpayer@chromium.org
The bisect blamed r410338 (V8 roll) as the culprit, but it failed to descend into it (issue 636310):

https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+log/c0b5119c..cbb22d3c

hpayer: From a quick glance, it looks like https://codereview.chromium.org/2224823003 could be the culprit. WDYT?

+cc neis, machenbach, verwaest, rmcilroy, neis, oth (authors of other patches in the roll).
Project Member

Comment 7 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 10 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410337  1119437  540.033  5  good
chromium@410338  1123430  1460.55  5  bad
chromium@410339  1124109  2322.33  5  bad
chromium@410340  1125190  4172.44  5  bad
chromium@410342  1124333  1277.52  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 0.44%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1509
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004795666280354432


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780247430037504

| 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 9 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 11 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@410337  1826540  8141.74  8  good
chromium@410342  1828339  6995.89  8  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus7_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/load_news_hackernews
Relative Change: 0.20%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus7_perf_bisect/builds/3199
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004795666280354432


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780247430037504

| 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!
I do not think it is my change, moreover this CL got reverted.

Since code space increases it may be one of the interpreter changes in the regression range. Ross, WDYT?
Owner: rmcilroy@chromium.org
It's possible that this could be related to "[interpreter] Inline ForInFilter stub" - https://codereview.chromium.org/2220343002, there was another potential regression (that increased the size of the handler by ~1.5KB so depending on the number of isolates, I guess this could have caused this). There is also another possible regression in issue 635826 on this CL, so I will revert it and see if this regression recovers.

The regression could also related to  issue 635801  - the CL changed startup timing which seems to have effected GC measurement timing.
Project Member

Comment 14 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Aug 12 2016

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/bbd0a093ca770daa286ea9469c5c851bb8230b9c

commit bbd0a093ca770daa286ea9469c5c851bb8230b9c
Author: rmcilroy <rmcilroy@chromium.org>
Date: Fri Aug 12 14:00:08 2016

Revert of [interpreter] Inline ForInFilter stub. (patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2220343002/ )

Reason for revert:
Speculative revert to possible performance regressions.

BUG=chromium:635826, chromium:635930 

Original issue's description:
> [interpreter] Inline ForInFilter stub.
>
> BUG= v8:4280 
> LOG=N
>
> Committed: https://crrev.com/2bf0b8c8ed5d0c93982c8c227e93622aceecea16
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38420}

TBR=oth@chromium.org
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG= v8:4280 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2238283002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38623}

[modify] https://crrev.com/bbd0a093ca770daa286ea9469c5c851bb8230b9c/src/interpreter/interpreter.cc

Project Member

Comment 15 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 13 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410332                1117616  1163.0   8  good
chromium@410332,v8@552601bb5f  1117056  2392.89  8  good
chromium@410333                1121280  2059.22  5  bad
chromium@410334                1119738  1776.13  5  bad
chromium@410335                1120973  2256.12  5  bad
chromium@410338                1123706  1353.57  5  bad
chromium@410343                1123232  1064.93  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 0.53%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1517
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004541563745713408


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780162939977728

| 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 13 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410332                1117616  1163.0   8  good
chromium@410332,v8@552601bb5f  1117056  2392.89  8  good
chromium@410333                1121280  2059.22  5  bad
chromium@410334                1119738  1776.13  5  bad
chromium@410335                1120973  2256.12  5  bad
chromium@410338                1123706  1353.57  5  bad
chromium@410343                1123232  1064.93  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 0.53%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1517
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004541563745713408


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780162939977728

| 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 18 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 13 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410332                1231539  1688.07  5  good
chromium@410337                1236024  1356.65  8  good
chromium@410337,v8@642c184fb4  1240312  1495.83  8  bad
chromium@410337,v8@2b10616b77  1241843  1652.51  5  bad
chromium@410338                1242368  1280.8   5  bad
chromium@410339                1242195  1560.41  5  bad
chromium@410340                1246074  10881.8  5  bad
chromium@410342                1241184  214.663  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.78%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2012
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004529793720549808


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5852412611395584

| 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 20 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 13 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410332                1231539  1688.07  5  good
chromium@410337                1236024  1356.65  8  good
chromium@410337,v8@642c184fb4  1240312  1495.83  8  bad
chromium@410337,v8@2b10616b77  1241843  1652.51  5  bad
chromium@410338                1242368  1280.8   5  bad
chromium@410339                1242195  1560.41  5  bad
chromium@410340                1246074  10881.8  5  bad
chromium@410342                1241184  214.663  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.78%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2012
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004529793720549808


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5852412611395584

| 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 23 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 15 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410337                1236616  1486.81  8  good
chromium@410337,v8@642c184fb4  1240268  1918.78  8  bad
chromium@410337,v8@2b10616b77  1241096  22.6274  8  bad
chromium@410338                1243661  3528.61  5  bad
chromium@410339                1242426  1749.55  5  bad
chromium@410340                1241747  1474.02  5  bad
chromium@410342                1241856  1459.25  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.42%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2015
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004541563745713408


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780162939977728

| 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!
Owner: neis@chromium.org
Reverting the ForInFilter inlining didn't impact this regression. The bisects are pointing at 642c184fb4 "[ast] Remove obsolete DECLARE_NODE_TYPE macro.". From a quick look at the CL I don't see how it might have impacted memory usage, but maybe there is something subtle that changed. Georg could you take a look?
Project Member

Comment 25 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 15 2016

Owner: oth@chromium.org

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author oth@chromium.org ===

Hi oth@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 : [interpreter] Inline ForInFilter stub.
Author  : oth
Commit description:
  
BUG= v8:4280 
LOG=N

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2220343002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38420}
Commit  : 2bf0b8c8ed5d0c93982c8c227e93622aceecea16
Date    : Mon Aug 08 09:07:15 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410337                1236948  1159.08  8  good
chromium@410337,v8@2bf0b8c8ed  1240346  576.178  5  bad    <--
chromium@410337,v8@642c184fb4  1240044  1406.23  8  bad
chromium@410337,v8@2b10616b77  1241747  1474.02  5  bad
chromium@410338                1242477  1687.77  5  bad
chromium@410339                1243341  1259.35  5  bad
chromium@410340                1241907  1927.66  5  bad
chromium@410342                1241696  1359.53  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.43%
Score: 99.9

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2016
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004529793720549808


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5852412611395584

| 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!
Owner: rmcilroy@chromium.org
rmcilroy: You were absolutely right that the regression was due to https://codereview.chromium.org/2220343002. Shall we mark this issue as fixed then (or do you want to keep it for re-landing)?
Petr: If this is fixed then marking as fixed is fine (I don't intend to re-land the CL in question). However is this fixed? On the graphs, two have recovered, but at a point much earlier than I did the revert. The other two still haven't recovered even after the revert.
Owner: petrcermak@chromium.org
rmcilroy: Good point. I kicked off another bisect on a different bot to see if there was another regression at the same time.
Project Member

Comment 30 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 16 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410322  1114908  1084.42  8  good
chromium@410329  1117528  1830.74  8  good
chromium@410332  1117164  1734.75  8  good
chromium@410334  1121708  2033.01  8  bad
chromium@410335  1120346  1140.48  5  bad
chromium@410347  1124109  1253.04  5  bad
chromium@410372  1127443  5165.97  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 1.16%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1519
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004258656024820704


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5294282466918400

| 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!
The bisect failed because it ran for 24 hours. Let's continue narrowing down the range...

Comment 34 by neis@chromium.org, Aug 16 2016

rmcilroy: I'd be surprised if this is related to my change.
Project Member

Comment 35 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 16 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410322  1114908  1084.42  8  good
chromium@410329  1117528  1830.74  8  good
chromium@410332  1117164  1734.75  8  good
chromium@410334  1121708  2033.01  8  bad
chromium@410335  1120346  1140.48  5  bad
chromium@410347  1124109  1253.04  5  bad
chromium@410372  1127443  5165.97  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 1.16%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1519
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004258656024820704


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5294282466918400

| 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 36 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 17 2016

Cc: bmeu...@chromium.org
Owner: bmeu...@chromium.org

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author bmeurer@chromium.org ===

Hi bmeurer@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 : [turbofan] Add initial support for growing stores.
Author  : bmeurer
Commit description:
  
Introduce a dedicated MaybeGrowFastElements simplified operator, which
tries to grow a fast elements backing store for a given element that
should be added to an array/object. Use that to lower a growing keyed
store to a sequence of

 1) check index is a valid array index,
 2) check stored value,
 3) maybe grow elements backing store (and deoptimize if it would
    normalize), and
 4) store the actual element.

The actual growing is done by two dedicated GrowFastDoubleElements
and GrowFastSmiOrObjectElements builtins, which are very similar to
the GrowArrayElementsStub that is used by Crankshaft.

Drive-by-fix: Turn CopyFixedArray into CopyFastSmiOrObjectElements
builtin, similar to the new growing builtins, so we don't need to
inline the store+write barrier for the elements into all optimized
code objects anymore.

Also fix a bug in the OperationTyper for NumberSilenceNaN, which was
triggered by this change.

BUG= v8:5272 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2227493002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38418}
Commit  : e6822a8338c70ab476e545da95d958c23ac366f9
Date    : Mon Aug 08 08:44:27 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410332                1116400  1223.91  8  good
chromium@410332,v8@552601bb5f  1116716  1431.89  8  good
chromium@410332,v8@e6822a8338  1120403  1416.09  5  bad    <--
chromium@410332,v8@0c699a5819  1119852  1302.65  8  bad
chromium@410333                1121677  2781.76  5  bad
chromium@410334                1120474  1960.95  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_tools-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_tools_stackoverflow
Relative Change: 0.41%
Score: 99.9

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1523
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004165710995805392


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5839577286180864

| 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 38 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 17 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@410337  1238472  7387.63  8  good
chromium@410342  1241348  1488.94  8  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.06%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2024
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004258656024820704


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5294282466918400

| 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 40 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 22 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410337                1236616  1486.81  8  good
chromium@410337,v8@642c184fb4  1240268  1918.78  8  bad
chromium@410337,v8@2b10616b77  1241096  22.6274  8  bad
chromium@410338                1243661  3528.61  5  bad
chromium@410339                1242426  1749.55  5  bad
chromium@410340                1241747  1474.02  5  bad
chromium@410342                1241856  1459.25  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus9_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 635930

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:code_space:effective_size_avg/load_news_qq
Relative Change: 0.42%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus9_perf_bisect/builds/2015
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004541563745713408


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5780162939977728

| 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!
Blockedon: 639813
Labels: SystemHealth-Sheriff
Labels: Performance
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
This regression is too old to be actionable. Closing as wontfix.

Sign in to add a comment