Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
blink_style.top_25 failed blink_style.top_25.reference failing on linux perf bots |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue description
,
Oct 27 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Exit Code Std Dev N Good? chromium@427857 0 N/A 2 good chromium@427900 0 N/A 2 bad Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660042 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_style.top_25 Test Metric: parse_css_large_tokens/parse_css_large_tokens Relative Change: 0.00% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6799 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997634974228257904 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5266859065081856 | 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!
,
Oct 27 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997632380826648880
,
Oct 27 2016
Ned, this seems to be happening because of my changes to WaitFor() There were some slight changes to the logic in how it runs, I would like to try increasing the timeout from 15 to 20 seconds first before reverting if you are ok with that. I think that the changes are making it wait slightly not long enough.
,
Oct 27 2016
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\telemetry\telemetry\internal\story_runner.py", line 87, in _RunStoryAndProcessErrorIfNeeded
state.RunStory(results)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\common\py_trace_event\py_trace_event\trace_event_impl\decorators.py", line 52, in traced_function
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\telemetry\telemetry\page\shared_page_state.py", line 301, in RunStory
self._current_page, self._current_tab, results)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\common\py_trace_event\py_trace_event\trace_event_impl\decorators.py", line 75, in traced_function
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\tools\perf\measurements\blink_style.py", line 35, in ValidateAndMeasurePage
util.WaitFor(tab.HasReachedQuiescence, 15)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\telemetry\telemetry\decorators.py", line 75, in wrapper
return target(*args, **kwargs)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\telemetry\telemetry\core\util.py", line 65, in WaitFor
return catapult_util.WaitFor(condition, timeout)
File "C:\b\c\b\Win_7_Nvidia_GPU_Perf__5_\src\third_party\catapult\common\py_utils\py_utils\__init__.py", line 132, in WaitFor
(timeout, GetConditionString()))
TimeoutException: Timed out while waiting 15s for HasReachedQuiescence.
,
Oct 27 2016
Actually, I figured it out. Its now catching the wrong exception. Ignore my earlyer analysis. The problem is with :
def ValidateAndMeasurePage(self, page, tab, results):
with tab.action_runner.CreateInteraction('wait-for-quiescence'):
tab.ExecuteJavaScript('console.time("");')
try:
# TODO(rnephew): Get rid of logging after crbug.com/660042 is fixed.
logging.critical('Time: %s' % time.time())
util.WaitFor(tab.HasReachedQuiescence, 20)
except exceptions.TimeoutException:
# Some sites never reach quiesence. As this benchmark normalizes/
# categories results, it shouldn't be necessary to reach the same
# state on every run.
pass
The exception should now by py_utils.TimeoutException
,
Oct 28 2016
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/b30d126f591bd1f26a4807328438abe2ddf39193 commit b30d126f591bd1f26a4807328438abe2ddf39193 Author: rnephew <rnephew@chromium.org> Date: Thu Oct 27 23:58:14 2016 [Telemetry] Fix exception handling for blink_styles use of WaitFor BUG= 660042 , 660046 CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.perf:mac_retina_perf_cq;master.tryserver.chromium.perf:winx64_10_perf_cq Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2452333004 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#428224} [modify] https://crrev.com/b30d126f591bd1f26a4807328438abe2ddf39193/tools/perf/measurements/blink_style.py [modify] https://crrev.com/b30d126f591bd1f26a4807328438abe2ddf39193/tools/perf/measurements/rasterize_and_record_micro.py
,
Oct 28 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : [Telemetry] Move from telemetry WaitFor to py_utils WaitFor Author : rnephew Commit description: BUG=catapult:#2955 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2453073002 Commit : eeeba06a98740aa6e9d84cc44a1346c8c8da33bf Date : Wed Oct 26 23:15:16 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Exit Code Std Dev N Good? chromium@427849 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427885 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427894 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427899 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427900 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427900,catapult@bd5139fa07 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427900,catapult@b1fcad56cd 0 N/A 5 good chromium@427900,catapult@eeeba06a98 1 N/A 5 bad <-- chromium@427901 1 N/A 5 bad chromium@427903 1 N/A 5 bad chromium@427921 1 N/A 5 bad Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660042 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_style.top_25 Test Metric: parse_css_large_tokens/parse_css_large_tokens Relative Change: Zero to non-zero Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6802 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997632380826648880 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6664031186714624 | 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Oct 27 2016