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

Issue 663134 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

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

Blocked on:
issue 662398



Sign in to add a comment

4% regression in system_health.memory_mobile at 429481:429534

Project Member Reported by briander...@chromium.org, Nov 8 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=663134

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgk5XWowkM


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

android-nexus5X

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


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean      Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@429534  58228364  3480323  8  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 663134

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:cc:effective_size_avg/browse_social/browse_social_twitter
Relative Change: 4.96%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/839
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8996607730183533456


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5772299855200256

| 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!
Blockedon: 662398

Comment 5 by dskiba@chromium.org, Nov 15 2016

Cc: aelias@chromium.org
Checked briefly. It seems that cc/resource_memory/provider_0 started including one more resource_XXX entry of 1904 KiB.

Before we had 5 resources x 1904 KiB, now we have 6. GPU process also has one extra corresponding texture.

One more thing is that the regression happened one point before - point 429480 has value of 57,644,200, but the error range is big (± 4,263,760), and in fact it already has one more entry. Previous point 429401 is the good one, without extra resource entry.
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-Memory

Sign in to add a comment