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

Issue 659534 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

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



Sign in to add a comment

13.8% regression in thread_times.key_mobile_sites_smooth at 427238:427293

Project Member Reported by alexclarke@chromium.org, Oct 26 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=659534

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgvaCwuAkM


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

android-nexus5X
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Oct 26 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@427237  3.71416  0.106878  18  good
chromium@427293  3.64726  0.156103  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 659534

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.key_mobile_sites_smooth
Test Metric: thread_GPU_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_GPU_cpu_time_per_frame
Relative Change: 1.40%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/797
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997749494818328000


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5905363063275520

| 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, Oct 26 2016


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


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev   N   Good?
chromium@427200  3.61159  0.167219  62  good
chromium@427247  3.70637  0.162869  12  bad
chromium@427293  3.73542  0.120018  12  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 659534

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests thread_times.key_mobile_sites_smooth
Test Metric: thread_GPU_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_GPU_cpu_time_per_frame
Relative Change: 5.52%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/799
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997739060152133184


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5802047557861376

| 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, Oct 27 2016

Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/804
Failure reason: the build has failed.
Additional errors:
The metric was not found in the test output.
Either of the initial "good" or "bad" revisions failed to be tested or built.

Status: WontFix (was: Untriaged)
These regressions happened before M56 branch. M56 is now in stable. These regressions made it to the stable channel. Marking wontfix.
Labels: Performance-Responsiveness

Sign in to add a comment