Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
4.4%-11.9% regression in page_cycler_v2.top_10_mobile at 429408:429525 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Nov 7 2016
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996607974279430752
,
Nov 8 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@429457 112.863 4.70323 18 good chromium@429472 116.529 6.56367 18 bad Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect Bug ID: 663132 Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler_v2.top_10_mobile Test Metric: timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/https___mobile.twitter.com_justinbieber?skip_interstitial_true Relative Change: 1.71% Score: 0 Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/7040 Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996607974279430752 Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you! https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5287147194548224 | 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
Closing because the regression in all graphs are within the noise. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by briander...@chromium.org
, Nov 7 2016