Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
10.1% regression in blink_perf.layout at 447569:447696 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Feb 8 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8988183247901220384
,
Feb 9 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author sigbjornf@opera.com === Hi sigbjornf@opera.com, 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 : sigbjornf Commit : 05cea29b1f7245b2cbd42f7da77705b9fa820707 Date : Thu Feb 02 01:56:23 2017 Subject: Have SubframeLoadingDisabler singleton live off-heap. Bisect Details Configuration: mac_10_11_perf_bisect Benchmark : blink_perf.layout Metric : nested-grid/nested-grid Change : 5.45% | 299.055776479 -> 282.748965143 Revision Result N chromium@447568 299.056 +- 4.86698 6 good chromium@447632 291.989 +- 2.61943 6 good chromium@447664 288.764 +- 4.00186 6 good chromium@447680 302.817 +- 1.8371 6 good chromium@447681 302.141 +- 4.9252 6 good chromium@447682 280.7 +- 4.43606 6 bad <-- chromium@447684 281.02 +- 2.89914 6 bad chromium@447688 277.801 +- 5.78528 6 bad chromium@447696 282.749 +- 2.98498 6 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.layout Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8988183247901220384 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4926079942262784 | 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!
,
Feb 9 2017
That CL addresses a stability issue by moving the allocation of a singleton map from one allocator to another, the singleton tracking a set of root documents. It makes little sense for that to have a bearing on a "display:grid" performance test, other than the changed allocation having a non-local effect on memory subsystem performance which is somehow coming through. None of the nearby commits could otherwise explain the drop, afaict.
,
Feb 9 2017
+eae Emil: looks like this regression is really only about 5%, and only on one of our mac configs (a mac mini running 10.11). Based on that and #4, do you think we should pursue a fix?
,
Feb 9 2017
Probably not worth it, assuming it only affects a single config. The nested test perf test is't terribly important. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by briander...@chromium.org
, Feb 8 2017