Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
webkit_unit_tests failing on 2 builders |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionwebkit_unit_tests failing on 2 builders Builders failed on: - WebKit Win x64 Builder: https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Win%20x64%20Builder - WebKit Win x64 Builder (dbg): https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Win%20x64%20Builder%20%28dbg%29
,
Mar 13 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8985237337082509264
,
Mar 14 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author mlippautz@chromium.org === Hi mlippautz@chromium.org, 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 : Michael Lippautz Commit : 68d6b6c613c8641748a390a10d886859e5afa38b Date : Fri Mar 03 12:10:33 2017 Subject: [heap] Support for minor MC marking during incremental marking part 2 Bisect Details Configuration: win_8_perf_bisect Benchmark : v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_turbo Metric : v8-gc-full-mark-compactor_avg/browse_media/browse_media_imgur Change : 7.25% | 59.7226172951 -> 64.0523501401 Revision Result N chromium@454780 59.7226 +- 3.19759 6 good chromium@454792 59.3387 +- 2.71321 6 good chromium@454794 61.1231 +- 3.74029 9 good chromium@454794,v8@de52562d8e 61.2858 +- 3.40293 14 good chromium@454794,v8@f7bc5ef0bc 61.3464 +- 6.91551 14 good chromium@454794,v8@14106d2d51 60.8767 +- 3.04079 9 good chromium@454794,v8@68d6b6c613 64.7155 +- 4.86624 6 bad <-- chromium@454794,v8@1a6487fd65 63.5936 +- 7.38029 14 bad chromium@454795 63.0959 +- 4.10555 9 bad chromium@454798 63.5284 +- 2.42896 6 bad chromium@454804 63.5937 +- 3.26274 6 bad chromium@454828 64.2429 +- 2.16623 6 bad chromium@454875 64.4255 +- 2.66989 6 bad chromium@454964 64.0524 +- 2.53789 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 --story-filter=browse.media.imgur v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_turbo Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8985237337082509264 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6187224032346112 | 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 Speed>Bisection. Thank you!
,
Mar 14 2017
I am confused about this one. The candidate CL only adds infrastructure behind a flag which is dead code using the default configuration. The initial report mentions a build failure while the bisect shows a perf regression. Something seems fishy here.
,
Mar 17 2017
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by yoichio@chromium.org
, Mar 13 2017