New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 646824 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 647009
Owner:
Closed: Sep 2016
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

24.2% regression in system_health.memory_desktop at 418149:418183

Project Member Reported by ulan@google.com, Sep 14 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 

Comment 1 by ulan@google.com, Sep 14 2016

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=646824

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgmYX8owoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-dual
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Sep 15 2016

Mergedinto: 647009
Status: Duplicate (was: Assigned)

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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : scheduler: Don't throttle 0x0 frames
Author  : skyostil
Commit description:
  
This patch avoids throttling requestAnimationFrame and timers inside 0x0
frames. The reason is that some websites (e.g., GMail) use cross origin
0x0 frames to drive UI logic and throttling these frames causes
breakage. This change also makes us match Safari's behavior.

This patch also removes the test for throttling out-of-process iframes,
because it turns out the viewport intersection code is not able to
compute intersections across process boundaries. This capability will be
restored when IntersectionObserver gains support for out-of-process
iframes.

BUG= 644217 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2333653002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#418174}
Commit  : b83d755a52a7fe9792af9ee360e551c157ad576e
Date    : Tue Sep 13 05:18:45 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@418148  2041513  89007.7  5  good
chromium@418166  2084312  35808.7  5  good
chromium@418171  2102502  109640   4  good
chromium@418173  2067192  86397.0  5  good
chromium@418174  2315427  23442.1  5  bad    <--
chromium@418175  2315427  17904.0  5  bad
chromium@418183  2298307  38874.1  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 646824

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_desktop
Test Metric: memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:new_space:effective_size_avg/memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:new_space:effective_size_avg
Relative Change: 12.58%
Score: 99.5

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6933
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9001540837341591792


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5885340454223872

| 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