Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
23.3% regression in v8.infinite_scroll_tbmv2 at 429308:429328 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Nov 4 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996918750648376368
,
Nov 4 2016
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author sahel@chromium.org === Hi sahel@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 : Revert "Touchpad scroll latching enabled for Mac behind flag." Author : sahel Commit description: This fixes Android scrollbar fading regression. reverted cl: https://crrev.com/2256733003 TBR=aelias@chromium.org BUG= 649122 , 526463 CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2467023003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#429316} Commit : d6036a082e4eea1c402dbd5d294dee1581ff201a Date : Wed Nov 02 17:26:20 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@429307 68940087 2509625 5 good chromium@429313 68934603 1248956 5 good chromium@429315 67547055 4128111 5 good chromium@429316 85396475 2909857 5 bad <-- chromium@429318 87175424 2655673 5 bad chromium@429328 84398620 2449996 5 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_retina_perf_bisect Bug ID: 662391 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests v8.infinite_scroll_tbmv2 Test Metric: memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max/memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max Relative Change: 22.42% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_retina_perf_bisect/builds/1786 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996918750648376368 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4825060085334016 | 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 4 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996897640285272096
,
Nov 4 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996895631080132960
,
Nov 4 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996895572198765952
,
Nov 5 2016
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===== Status: completed ===== SUSPECTED CL(s) ===== Subject : Revert "Touchpad scroll latching enabled for Mac behind flag." Author : sahel Commit description: This fixes Android scrollbar fading regression. reverted cl: https://crrev.com/2256733003 TBR=aelias@chromium.org BUG= 649122 , 526463 CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2467023003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#429316} Commit : d6036a082e4eea1c402dbd5d294dee1581ff201a Date : Wed Nov 02 17:26:20 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@429307 68848731 2942756 5 good chromium@429313 68575995 2654358 5 good chromium@429315 68621049 2268495 5 good chromium@429316 87311997 2437401 5 bad <-- chromium@429318 85953940 1724237 5 bad chromium@429328 86573330 2524778 5 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_retina_perf_bisect Bug ID: 662391 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests v8.infinite_scroll_tbmv2 Test Metric: memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max/memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max Relative Change: 25.74% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_retina_perf_bisect/builds/1787 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996897640285272096 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5786261585920000 | 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 5 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@429300 63814141 2349034 18 good chromium@429315 63819427 2916230 17 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_10_10_perf_bisect Bug ID: 662391 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests v8.infinite_scroll_tbmv2 Test Metric: memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max/memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max Relative Change: 2.09% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_10_10_perf_bisect/builds/2463 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996895631080132960 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5105325693206528 | 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 5 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@429317 72770331 1272268 18 good chromium@429325 72054874 1486625 18 bad Bisect job ran on: mac_10_10_perf_bisect Bug ID: 662391 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests v8.infinite_scroll_tbmv2 Test Metric: memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max/memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:effective_size_max Relative Change: 0.57% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_10_10_perf_bisect/builds/2464 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996895572198765952 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5254686200823808 | 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 7 2016
,
Nov 8 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996576103057120208
,
Nov 8 2016
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author ishell@chromium.org === Hi ishell@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 : [ic] Experiment: disable map-specific handler cache. Author : ishell Commit description: IC data handlers support most of the hot cases nowdays. Let's see if the map-specific code cache still help us to improve things. BUG=v8:5561 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2462973003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40685} Commit : a52ffd44fdc7983dda7a0ca7ad2016853d80cbe1 Date : Tue Nov 01 11:18:36 2016 ===== TESTED REVISIONS ===== Revision Mean Std Dev N Good? chromium@429240 1473030 14.3108 5 good chromium@429244 1473036 0.0 5 good chromium@429246 1473026 20.3175 5 good chromium@429246,v8@9c78194343 1472787 17.5271 5 good chromium@429246,v8@c1753f5c3d 1472782 20.3175 5 good chromium@429246,v8@a52ffd44fd 1474026 14.3108 5 bad <-- chromium@429246,v8@b19abf5371 1474003 17.5271 5 bad chromium@429246,v8@d5055bc932 1474003 17.5271 5 bad chromium@429247 1474010 14.3108 5 bad Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect Bug ID: 662391 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=flickr v8.infinite_scroll-ignition_tbmv2 Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:heap:allocated_objects_size_max/flickr Relative Change: 0.07% Score: 99.9 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1790 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996576103057120208 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5884297838329856 | 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 8 2016
Changing owner back to @sahel, whose patch has a 22% regression that has been identified multiple times. Please revert the patch of fix asap. +Ned, since this is memory related.
,
Nov 8 2016
sahel@'s https://codereview.chromium.org/2467023003 just reverts a broken change and returns to status quo (that we never shipped to stable channel). |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by mlippautz@google.com
, Nov 4 2016