Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
1.7%-5.6% regression in media.tough_video_cases_extra at 427431:427540 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionIncrease in seek time on several win7 tests.
,
Oct 27 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997604683281150528
,
Oct 28 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@427457 581.639 10.9093 18 good chromium@427512 586.388 11.9548 18 bad Bisect job ran on: winx64ati_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/garden2_10s.webm_seek_cold Relative Change: 3.04% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64ati_perf_bisect/builds/1629 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997604683281150528 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5238738303582208 | 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!
,
Nov 1 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997173918512886864
,
Nov 1 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997173913745892752
,
Nov 1 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997173905625489392
,
Nov 1 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997173892650795456
,
Nov 1 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64ati_perf_bisect/builds/1634 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.
,
Nov 1 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7031 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.
,
Nov 1 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7030 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.
,
Nov 1 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7032 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.
,
Nov 18 2016
,
Dec 20 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8992796582593918784
,
Dec 20 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: No values were found while testing the reference range. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427440 N/A N/A 0 good chromium@427524 N/A N/A 0 bad Bisect job ran on: winx64intel_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=crowd720.vp9.webm.seek.cold media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/crowd720_vp9.webm_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.00% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64intel_perf_bisect/builds/1260 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8992796582593918784 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5840479969607680 | 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!
,
Dec 21 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8992630234364619872
,
Dec 21 2016
The failure in #c14 was from https://github.com/catapult-project/catapult/issues/3103 which is fixed, retried bisect.
,
Dec 22 2016
Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_x64_perf_bisect/builds/1558 Failure reason: the build has failed.
,
Dec 22 2016
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437933632737904
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437922466843056
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437909943165872
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437899241540800
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437891466094256
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437881449213600
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427456 422.969 17.1735 21 good chromium@427539 422.64 9.06038 21 bad Bisect job ran on: winx64ati_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.08% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64ati_perf_bisect/builds/1678 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437933632737904 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5289194107174912 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427430 319.511 6.25071 21 good chromium@427512 320.205 5.1059 21 bad Bisect job ran on: win_x64_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/garden2_10s.webm_seek_warm Relative Change: 0.22% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_x64_perf_bisect/builds/1562 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437891466094256 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5775042820964352 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427430 979.528 22.3084 21 good chromium@427512 979.998 12.2671 21 bad Bisect job ran on: win_x64_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.05% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_x64_perf_bisect/builds/1561 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437899241540800 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5805402871037952 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427491 1092.72 56.7192 21 good chromium@427564 1101.76 56.9737 21 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.83% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7088 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437922466843056 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6415094014017536 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427491 1002.07 69.9097 21 good chromium@427564 1010.29 102.784 21 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/tulip2.vp9.webm_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.82% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7090 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437881449213600 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5848042903699456 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427491 1021.62 47.2616 21 good chromium@427564 1028.52 115.045 21 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/video.html?src_garden2_10s.mp4 Relative Change: 0.67% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7089 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991437909943165872 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5870139302477824 | 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!
,
Jan 4 2017
With the various bisect infra bugs fixed, I kicked off a bunch of bisects for the different graphs in this bug. Seems they're all "not confident". I'll focus on crowd720_vp9.webm_seek_cold (4.6% regression) and pull the starting range back.
,
Jan 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991379283617826880
,
Jan 4 2017
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: failed === Bisection aborted === The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence. Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error. ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@427004 175.687 28.4183 21 good chromium@427669 174.836 12.0083 21 bad Bisect job ran on: winx64intel_perf_bisect Bug ID: 660232 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Test Metric: seek/crowd720_vp9.webm_seek_cold Relative Change: 0.48% Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64intel_perf_bisect/builds/1267 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991379283617826880 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5310191262760960 | 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!
,
Jan 5 2017
Mean value is still in the post-regression range even after moving the start revision way back into the "good" range. I notice that all of the tests in this alert are on win7 bots. Perhaps an OS update across all bots hurt seeking performance irrespective of chrome. I've filed a bad-bisect bug in case there is some other explanation. +annie - anything else for us to do here? Does the explanation sound plausible? Do we have a log of OS updates?
,
Jan 5 2017
Same story for Issue 660245
,
Jan 5 2017
I've found that 9/14 graphs show bumps in the ref metric as well, so I'll "ignore" these 9. Still digging into the other 5. chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/video.html?src_garden2_10s.mp4 2.8% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=6777b598dbfa7f13eacf1020cdd2826fc4c246cb89acc606cebb665421191c9f&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/video.html?src_garden2_10s.webm 2.8% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=fcad808609c8922178050c6b53c6e25eb207755f83b57b87c77e5c4c218fca06&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-dual seek/tulip2.vp9.webm_seek_cold 4.1% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=fd9ac14032789891a8f8b8651bdd3c8627c5e8b9af1ae36378a662d61aa9b183&start_rev=425531&end_rev=435724 chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_warm 2.8% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=031956257efae8dff061ede6ebaf93291ae993ef53ae3568d65345db49b62625&start_rev=422347&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/garden2_10s.webm_seek_warm 2.8% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=1a4d1fe483151557b155d5fe973455743e7b5010ef5dc02e4b7fbd716fcf5a28&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_cold 1.9% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=a0e349ed188bd9d488a4c30d1449e567239538c4346175355231d5070a08b31e&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-dual seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_warm 2.4% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=fa620fae918e2a2abc893e50120881df357ae121554d5345969eaa69d8b89037&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-dual seek/video.html?src_garden2_10s.mp4 2.4% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=3df10701f9bbc441dd37ecb3d4b80ae1d8d771ccb79bc298bdbae808e7e90dee&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-dual seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_cold 1.9% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=c2a57576bf019d7bc2edab6dc4a83c3cb6dd06f83af6150cbb73d139f46ee82b&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766
,
Jan 5 2017
Also ignoring this one. Ref shows a bump (somewhat smaller/less abrupt, but def there) chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel seek/crowd720_vp9.webm_seek_cold 4.6% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=f5f35a83d15df644e5f3c92f191b74bdfee349beccb8a158389d8ca251c11dfc&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766
,
Jan 5 2017
Here's the breakdown for the final 4 alerts.... For these the ref shows no bump. Even stranger, about 10k revisions later the ref value makes a sudden drop (amount varries) while ref reamins fixed at higher mean. Will kick off a bisect for all of these. chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual seek/tulip2.vp9.webm_seek_cold 4.3% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=537de83ad81737003507f9d3d3ec8fd0a02d85489491f33691673aa9071e3f89&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-gpu-nvidia seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold 1.7% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=47c53d2d9f138a9f6b33d9ce6f6624673b482ae3771e5aae17eedb67eb70fdcc&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold 2.1% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=f6274f360b5cf0e369ac34d21db1b7d47599c5626a8a2401d10ef82511f66379&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766 This one shows a bump in ref too (so can ignore) but about 10k revisions later the NON-REF drops by over 50%. Will bisect that improvement out of curiousity. chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati seek/garden2_10s.webm_seek_cold 5.6% https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=e4911f4d3a649460a2bd93d7fe1704f185ecdd42a6cd6ba0faace6ab9f89fc4c&start_rev=425500&end_rev=437766
,
Jan 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278229898075392
,
Jan 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278191337455536
,
Jan 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278167471798064
,
Jan 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: winx64ati_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold Revision Result N chromium@426963 421.503 +- 9.24532 21 good chromium@428614 422.513 +- 12.8836 21 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278167471798064 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5844211121782784 | 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!
,
Jan 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold Revision Result N chromium@426962 422.383 +- 7.93319 21 good chromium@428614 422.702 +- 6.226 21 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278191337455536 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5850086905479168 | 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!
,
Jan 6 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author xiaochengh@chromium.org === Hi xiaochengh@chromium.org, the bisect results pointed to your CL, please take a look at the results. === BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : xiaochengh Commit : bc320afb51a662a92f69369d818701dd1898d1cc Date : Tue Oct 18 08:36:24 2016 Subject: Audit use of updateStyleAndLayoutIgnorePendingStylesheets in FrameSelection::updateIfNeeded Bisect Details Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/tulip2.vp9.webm_seek_cold Change : 2.20% | 994.9125 -> 973.026666667 Revision Result N chromium@425500 994.912 +- 26.004 6 good chromium@425891 986.437 +- 12.9936 9 good chromium@425916 1000.42 +- 9.97813 6 good chromium@425919 989.961 +- 21.1164 9 good chromium@425921 1013.07 +- 59.1914 6 good chromium@425922 974.575 +- 12.9101 6 bad <-- chromium@425928 969.563 +- 18.3044 6 bad chromium@425940 966.738 +- 10.4628 6 bad chromium@425989 969.667 +- 7.27364 6 bad chromium@426086 985.006 +- 123.324 14 bad chromium@426281 974.93 +- 15.2047 9 bad chromium@427061 972.742 +- 11.1953 6 bad chromium@428622 973.027 +- 15.064 6 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8991278229898075392 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4931136239697920 | 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!
,
Jan 6 2017
My CL only hoists the call site of a function in the call stack without changing any behavior. It shouldn't affect the performance.
,
Jan 6 2017
Giving up. None of the bumps are reproduceable. The one found culprit is bogus. Filed bad bisect for that one (even just looking at the list of means in comment 44, the determination of "bad" from "good" seems random).
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982624342681102400
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982624133816276608
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982620258140164096
,
Apr 11 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: winx64ati_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/tulip2.webm_seek_cold Revision Result N chromium@427456 422.728 +- 9.74508 21 good chromium@427539 423.594 +- 11.206 21 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982624342681102400 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5289194107174912 | 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 Speed>Bisection. Thank you!
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982596486023202976
,
Apr 11 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/garden2_10s.mp4_seek_warm Revision Result N chromium@427430 979.368 +- 22.0665 21 good chromium@427512 981.47 +- 20.5414 21 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982624133816276608 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5302073741017088 | 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 Speed>Bisection. Thank you!
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982576325962324560
,
Apr 11 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases_extra Metric : seek/crowd720_vp9.webm_seek_cold Revision Result N chromium@427004 178.022 +- 11.8002 21 good chromium@427669 180.115 +- 25.0646 21 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases_extra Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982620258140164096 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5310191262760960 | 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 Speed>Bisection. Thank you! |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by chcunningham@google.com
, Oct 27 2016