Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
28.7%-34.6% regression in blink_perf.bindings at 456666:456721 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Mar 16 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8984956872592662800
,
Mar 17 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Bisect was unable to run to completion Please try rerunning the bisect. If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error. Bisect Details Configuration: android_webview_arm64_aosp_perf_bisect Benchmark : blink_perf.bindings Metric : dom-attribute-on-prototoype/dom-attribute-on-prototoype Revision Result N chromium@456681 37.7831 +- 62.5983 20 good chromium@456721 25.2036 +- 36.1107 14 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-webview --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8984956872592662800 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5488831547047936 | 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 23 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8984330967128236272
,
Mar 23 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author verwaest@chromium.org === Hi verwaest@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 : Toon Verwaest Commit : 4d2dd669676034a4b4135c069958051f259832de Date : Tue Mar 14 09:11:11 2017 Subject: [ic] Turn load-interceptor into a smi-handler Bisect Details Configuration: winx64_10_perf_bisect Benchmark : blink_perf.bindings Metric : dom-attribute-on-prototoype/dom-attribute-on-prototoype Change : 39.06% | 252.124816874 -> 153.634301714 Revision Result N chromium@456689 252.125 +- 5.25236 6 good chromium@456690 253.416 +- 1.47869 6 good chromium@456690,v8@f20261bfb4 234.416 +- 21.5751 6 good chromium@456690,v8@4d2dd66967 168.616 +- 5.99775 6 bad <-- chromium@456690,v8@8e18765d69 165.719 +- 8.3986 6 bad chromium@456690,v8@a5eec0ca0b 168.134 +- 6.30621 6 bad chromium@456691 165.628 +- 3.60507 6 bad chromium@456692 165.932 +- 7.29659 6 bad chromium@456695 169.85 +- 6.94736 6 bad chromium@456701 168.126 +- 8.12983 6 bad chromium@456713 167.937 +- 5.97435 6 bad chromium@456737 168.157 +- 6.81068 6 bad chromium@456784 153.634 +- 6.39863 6 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8984330967128236272 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4601518063353856 | 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 27 2017
We'll soonish look into restoring the performance of lookup behind interceptors. This regression isn't currently showing up on top25 though, so this isn't super high priority.
,
Apr 11 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982615943763781088
,
Aug 16 2017
From #6, looks like there are overall efforts to improve the performance here, but this regression wasn't a focus. WontFix-ing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by rmcilroy@chromium.org
, Mar 16 2017