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

Issue 636359 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 636360
Owner:
Last visit > 30 days ago
Closed: Aug 2016
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

20.2% regression in v8.top_25_smooth at 410334:410346

Project Member Reported by pmeenan@chromium.org, Aug 10 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=636359

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg1r7spAsM


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

linux-release
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 10 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@410333  55.1941  2.57939  18  good
chromium@410346  55.5979  1.8265   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 636359

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests v8.top_25_smooth
Test Metric: v8_gc_total/v8_gc_total
Relative Change: 1.73%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6636
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004709940971415888


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5797456223141888

| 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, Aug 10 2016


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


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410316  47.6037  2.2514   8  good
chromium@410320  48.6706  3.1913   8  good
chromium@410322  47.4754  1.07593  5  good
chromium@410323  46.7161  1.08925  5  good
chromium@410324  55.6233  2.49431  5  bad
chromium@410332  54.7975  1.62925  5  bad
chromium@410347  54.3099  1.06761  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 636359

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests v8.top_25_smooth
Test Metric: v8_gc_total/v8_gc_total
Relative Change: 16.58%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6638
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004697202129142320


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6395144274706432

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


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


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@410316  47.6037  2.2514   8  good
chromium@410320  48.6706  3.1913   8  good
chromium@410322  47.4754  1.07593  5  good
chromium@410323  46.7161  1.08925  5  good
chromium@410324  55.6233  2.49431  5  bad
chromium@410332  54.7975  1.62925  5  bad
chromium@410347  54.3099  1.06761  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 636359

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests v8.top_25_smooth
Test Metric: v8_gc_total/v8_gc_total
Relative Change: 16.58%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6638
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004697202129142320


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6395144274706432

| 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!
Mergedinto: 636360
Status: Duplicate (was: Assigned)
Project Member

Comment 10 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 11 2016


===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : Unify memory optimization modes and flags.
Author  : ulan
Commit description:
  
This patch folds --optimize-for-size flag and check for low-memory device
into Heap::ShouldOptimizeForMemoryUsage() predicate.

It has the following side effects:
- the heap growing factor for low-memory devices is capped at 1.3 (old value was 2.0).
- the memory reducer will be more aggressive for low-memory devices.

BUG= chromium:634900 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2218703004
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38406}
Commit  : 6cebf7d963c18e2ab09f2320c949baf0a4bed721
Date    : Sun Aug 07 15:36:10 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean     Std Dev   N  Good?
chromium@410316                47.1018  0.920282  5  good
chromium@410320                47.9134  2.16442   5  good
chromium@410322                46.9743  0.708755  5  good
chromium@410323                46.7163  1.6313    5  good
chromium@410323,v8@422d14350d  46.9072  2.40961   5  good
chromium@410323,v8@6cebf7d963  56.1847  3.70285   5  bad    <--
chromium@410323,v8@5e685567ea  55.5822  2.21613   5  bad
chromium@410323,v8@265399ed9a  54.9173  1.67486   5  bad
chromium@410324                55.5617  1.61059   4  bad
chromium@410332                57.6214  2.26184   5  bad
chromium@410347                57.3844  1.80901   5  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 636359

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests v8.top_25_smooth
Test Metric: v8_gc_total/v8_gc_total
Relative Change: 21.83%
Score: 99.5

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6640
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004697202129142320


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6395144274706432

| 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