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

Issue 673323 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Owner: ----
Closed: Dec 2016
Cc:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

23.9% regression in blink_perf.svg at 437108:437182

Project Member Reported by pmeenan@chromium.org, Dec 12 2016

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=673323

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgt6aetAkM


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

chromium-rel-win10
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Dec 12 2016

Mergedinto: 672579
Status: Duplicate (was: Untriaged)

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : Force GC in different ways for different measurements in blink_perf tests
Author  : wangxianzhu
Commit description:
  
Previously we force GC before each iteration of test, but for frame time
measurement, the result is much affected by GC performance. Now force
GC in different ways:

- measureTime: force GC before recording the start time of each
  iteration;
- measureRunsPerSecond: same as above;
- measureFrameTime: force GC before starting the whole test;

Other measurements either call one of the above measurement methods, or
don't call scheduleNextRun() which previously forced GC so not affected.

BUG= 667811 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2559893002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#437109}
Commit  : a61df787643d5238a3f902a2acfafc85c0e6690f
Date    : Thu Dec 08 01:25:35 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N   Good?
chromium@437107  25.1563  27.1712  30  good
chromium@437108  26.8828  33.7235  30  good
chromium@437109  29.7438  27.6049  30  bad    <--
chromium@437110  30.2175  26.7901  30  bad
chromium@437112  32.1935  19.5555  30  bad
chromium@437117  28.5182  27.5714  30  bad
chromium@437126  30.7807  24.2507  30  bad
chromium@437145  30.6857  25.7199  30  bad
chromium@437182  28.1275  25.7335  30  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_10_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 673323

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.svg
Test Metric: HarveyRayner/HarveyRayner
Relative Change: 11.81%

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_10_perf_bisect/builds/810
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993472870069020112


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5785616611016704

| 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