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

Issue 706892 link

Starred by 4 users

Issue metadata

Status: Fixed
Owner:
Closed: Sep 2017
Cc:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression

Blocked on:
issue 696672



Sign in to add a comment

1%-1.2% regression in memory.top_10_mobile_stress at 460598:460634

Project Member Reported by lanwei@chromium.org, Mar 30 2017

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Mar 31 2017

Cc: ca...@igalia.com
Owner: ca...@igalia.com

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author caitp@igalia.com ===

Hi caitp@igalia.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 : Caitlin Potter
  Commit : bf463c4dc080abb1ae39c6f0a93e6a95867b0ca3
  Date   : Wed Mar 29 17:33:12 2017
  Subject: [async-iteration] implement AsyncGenerator

Bisect Details
  Configuration: android_nexus6_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : memory.top_10_mobile_stress
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/foreground/http_m_intl_taobao_com_group_purchase_html
  Change       : 1.32% | 3570868.0 -> 3617892.0

Revision                           Result                  N
chromium@460597                    3570868 +- 30913.6      6      good
chromium@460614                    3575325 +- 32800.3      6      good
chromium@460618                    3579387 +- 32346.3      6      good
chromium@460620                    3575188 +- 33165.7      6      good
chromium@460620,v8@6234fda3c9      3566188 +- 24558.3      6      good
chromium@460620,v8@bf463c4dc0      3617874 +- 30054.0      6      bad       <--
chromium@460620,v8@367d646a9e      3614179 +- 24304.2      6      bad
chromium@460620,v8@5615e5b866      3621920 +- 31485.1      6      bad
chromium@460621                    3612245 +- 23057.8      6      bad
chromium@460623                    3621956 +- 32307.2      6      bad
chromium@460631                    3617892 +- 30734.4      6      bad

Please refer to the following doc on diagnosing memory regressions:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/memory-infra/memory_benchmarks.md

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests memory.top_10_mobile_stress

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983674806476416896

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6249537615691776


| 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!

Comment 4 by ca...@igalia.com, Mar 31 2017

Blockedon: 696672
Project Member

Comment 5 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Mar 31 2017

 Issue 706893  has been merged into this issue.
Cc: pmeenan@chromium.org
 Issue 708577  has been merged into this issue.
 Issue 708581  has been merged into this issue.
Cc: ericrk@chromium.org
 Issue 708852  has been merged into this issue.
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)
Explictly assigning. A CL you landed tripped one of the speed metrics we measure in the lab. If this is the first time this has happened to one of your CLs, or if it's been a while, please read: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/speed/addressing_performance_regressions.md

We're looking for one of the following:
1. Justification via explanation
2. Plan to revert or fix
3. Angry rage throwing of equipment at my head

Just be aware that I'm trained in trumpet playing and First Aid and am not afraid to use it.

Note: This was a bulk edit message and not very personal.
caitp: any update here?

Comment 11 by caitp@chromium.org, Sep 14 2017

A combination of refactorings and the new lazy builtins scheme in v8 seem likely to have addressed the issue.
Status: Fixed (was: Assigned)
Marking fixed per #11.

Sign in to add a comment