Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
39.3%-61.8% regression in cpu_utilization for media.android.tough_video_cases at 412621:412670 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSignificant spike in cpu utilization across several android devices.
,
Aug 18 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003959466683254768
,
Aug 19 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@412620 27.052 1.95714 12 good chromium@412645 22.3822 1.7966 5 bad chromium@412670 24.0651 2.89448 8 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_cstate_WFI_residency_percent/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 13.37% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/532 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003959466683254768 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5801990349651968 | 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 19 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003923478542825680
,
Aug 19 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@412620 27.052 1.95714 12 good chromium@412645 22.3822 1.7966 5 bad chromium@412670 24.0651 2.89448 8 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_cstate_WFI_residency_percent/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 13.37% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/532 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003959466683254768 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5801990349651968 | 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 19 2016
,
Aug 19 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866387306146688
,
Aug 19 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866374692972672
,
Aug 19 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866371072079504
,
Aug 19 2016
Retrying bisects. prasadv@ - sorry to randomly include, pls re-route as needed. Can you help me understand why the firsts bisect failed? They don't really give an error msg AFAIK.
,
Aug 19 2016
Hi chcunningham@chromium.org, Looks like while retrying the tests, the step command, after 60 mins without any output it timed out. Previous test runs took around 8~9 minutes. https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/532/steps/Working%20on%20revision%20chromium%40412633.Waiting%20for%20chromium%40412633.Waiting%20for%20chromium%40412633.Waiting%20for%20chromium%40412633.Performance%20Test%206%20of%206/logs/stdio Hi Roberto, Is this has to do anything with multiple nesting?
,
Aug 20 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@412620 7.56403 0.104825 12 good chromium@412670 7.52792 0.202036 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm_browser Relative Change: 1.34% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/544 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866371072079504 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4997142469410816 | 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 20 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@412620 19.0452 0.413545 12 good chromium@412670 19.0991 0.235241 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm_gpu Relative Change: 0.47% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/545 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866374692972672 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5334297133711360 | 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 20 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@412620 19.5373 0.15475 5 good chromium@412670 19.2636 0.0939957 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 1.40% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/543 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866387306146688 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6159970236628992 | 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 20 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003834179982317472
,
Aug 20 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@412620 19.5373 0.15475 5 good chromium@412670 19.2636 0.0939957 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 1.40% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/543 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003866387306146688 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6159970236628992 | 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 20 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003830311988736496
,
Aug 20 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@412620 24.7331 1.56031 12 good chromium@412670 25.4304 1.96894 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_cstate_WFI_residency_percent/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 0.68% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/533 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003959466683254768 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5801990349651968 | 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 22 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611521356408768
,
Aug 22 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611500369669344
,
Aug 22 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611476920974496
,
Aug 22 2016
Re comment 11: thanks for digging into it. Seems to be somewhat transient... other bisects have since gotten further. Since filing this bug, many of the graphs have recovered, but some have not. I've just kicked off 3 new bisects for the 3 largest unrecovered regressions - 3 graphs for "ChromiumPerf/android-nexus5X/media.android.tough_video_cases / cpu_utilization /" (not sure whats different about these ... why aren't they just one graph?). For these, bisect should really not fail to find a significant difference between good and bad. Fingers crossed.
,
Aug 22 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@412620 19.1425 0.357672 12 good chromium@412670 19.6262 0.469599 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm_gpu Relative Change: 0.53% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/555 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611500369669344 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5322328100044800 | 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 22 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@412620 7.562 0.110904 12 good chromium@412670 7.56092 0.126664 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm_browser Relative Change: 0.34% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/556 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611476920974496 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5794633305554944 | 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 22 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@412620 19.2328 0.421451 12 good chromium@412670 19.4033 0.361467 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 1.64% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/554 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003611521356408768 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5866898277793792 | 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 22 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003593869444233152
,
Aug 22 2016
New bisect pulls back the starting revision... all of the good/bad numbers from previous attempts are really "bad". Standby for results.
,
Aug 23 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/558 Failure reason: the build has failed due to infrastructure failure.
,
Aug 23 2016
prasadv/robertocn: new bisect failure. Can you help me get this working?
,
Aug 23 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003578112784539888
,
Aug 23 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@412392 19.2152 0.33522 12 good chromium@412724 19.2922 0.364542 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 1.38% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/561 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003578112784539888 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6401452591808512 | 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 23 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003515413635006256
,
Aug 23 2016
Pulling start range back even further. Not hopeful. Again, many of the graphs associated with this bug have resolved, but a few for cpu utilization are still significantly regressed. My bisects focus on these remaining cases. prasadv/robertocn: Has the bot/infra received patches recently? The reference graph for this metric hasn't changed, but it may be that the reference build and current build use totally different OS apis - not sure if this is a reasonable explanation.
,
Aug 23 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@412148 18.9281 0.388502 12 good chromium@412670 19.3648 0.396707 12 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_utilization/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 2.96% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/586 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9003515413635006256 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5857205207695360 | 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 24 2016
prasadv@ - bisect has not been helpful for this regression. Please take a look. Note my details about the particular regression (see Comment 33) - some graphs associated with this bug have recovered. I'm focused on those that remain regressed. please re-assign to appropriate tooling owner if not you :)
,
Sep 9 2016
Chris, #5 and #7 failed due to this bug 639813, which has been fixed since. I will attempt relaunching those bisects that seemed to be more close to reproducing a regression than those launched after.
,
Sep 9 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9001972706948736672
,
Sep 10 2016
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author marpan@chromium.org === Hi marpan@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 : Roll src/third_party/libvpx/source/libvpx/ 2d1e63d0c..fe4dd4f43 (13 commits). Author : marpan Commit description: https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx.git/+log/2d1e63d0c50c..fe4dd4f43ff6 $ git log 2d1e63d0c..fe4dd4f43 --date=short --no-merges --format='%ad %ae %s' 2016-08-11 jzern variance_impl_avx2: restore table layout 2016-08-03 linfengz NEON intrinsics for 4 loopfilter functions 2016-08-11 yunqingwang Fix another motion vector out of range bug 2016-08-10 marpan vp8: Fix denoiser setting in multi-res sample encoder. 2016-08-09 paulwilkins Modified ARF group allocation. 2016-07-29 margtu-fivt Align thread entry point stack 2016-08-08 jzern tests: use scoped_ptr for local video source vars 2016-08-08 jzern y4m_test: init members in the constructor 2016-07-15 yuryg Add cpi parameter for forcing segmentation update 2016-08-08 aconverse Refactor mv limits. 2016-08-05 jzern *_perf_test.cc: correct DoDecode signature 2016-08-04 noreply test: apply clang-tidy google-readability-braces-around-statements 2016-08-05 yunqingwang Fix a motion vector out of range bug R=johannkoenig@google.com Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2259483002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#412644} Commit : db041e863ac318d054f13a16885a557c7cc93b5e Date : Wed Aug 17 21:33:19 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@412620 12.8387 1.21217 5 good chromium@412633 13.4868 1.52297 5 good chromium@412639 13.503 0.809054 5 good chromium@412642 12.7857 1.01754 5 good chromium@412643 13.7466 1.30273 5 good chromium@412644 19.2652 1.41711 5 bad <-- chromium@412645 20.538 2.4618 5 bad chromium@412670 21.8589 2.82197 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Bug ID: 639065 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests media.android.tough_video_cases Test Metric: cpu_cstate_WFI_residency_percent/video.html?src_smpte_3840x2160_60fps_vp9.webm Relative Change: 70.26% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/661 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9001972706948736672 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6248374276194304 | 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!
,
Sep 12 2016
Johann: do you see anything in that roll (mentioned in #38) that would cause the cpu utilization regression on android.
,
Sep 12 2016
Is a higher number better or worse? In the previous bisects near the top it looked like a high number going to a low number, maybe fps? and the drop is clearly bad. This change brings in some arm improvements so I find it strange that it is implicated. Looking at third_party/libvpx I would expect the following (unfortunately I can't find the chromium@N versions in the commit log - there is Cr-Commit-Position, but it is in the 415xxx range, not 412xxx) I would expect a progression like this: Speed regression hits with: https://codereview.chromium.org/2221193003 as I remove the armv6 fallback for halfpix variance in "2016-07-29 johannkoenig Remove armv6 target" Maybe a tiny speed change with: https://codereview.chromium.org/2259483002 for "2016-08-03 linfengz NEON intrinsics for 4 loopfilter functions" and https://codereview.chromium.org/2266453002 as it picks up loopfilter improvements in "2016-08-12 linfengz NEON asm of vpx_lpf_{horizontal,vertical}_8_dual_neon()" but those are just replacing existing neon assembly with intrinsics, which should be ~approximately the same speed. Things should mostly be recovered with: https://codereview.chromium.org/2295893002 That brings in "2016-08-23 johannkoenig Remove halfpix specialization" which fixes the largest hole in the missing neon optimizations. This is something there *were* armv6/media optimizations for, but they were removed. There are still two functions missing which I have changes in flight for: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/380311/ https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/380505/ However, these are 4x4 transforms and should not have a large impact in coding speed in most cases..
,
Sep 20 2016
marpan/johan, thanks for looking into this. > Is a higher number better or worse? In the previous bisects near the top it looked like a high number going to a low number A higher number is worse. Those early bisects weren't good. The issue here is not that the speed or fps of video playback is regressed, but rather the CPU usage is higher during the playback.
,
Nov 18 2016
,
Mar 21 2017
,
May 6 2017
This regression has been included in a stable release and that stable channel is now deprecated. I'm closing this so that we won't have unresponsive performance regressions in the future. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by chcunningham@google.com
, Aug 18 2016