10-20% regression in CalcDrawProps time |
||||||||
Issue descriptionCalcDrawProps time has regressed by ~15% on Android Dev. Creating this bug so we can run bisects on the perfbots.
,
Apr 5 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: linux_perf_bisect Benchmark : cc_perftests Metric : calc_draw_props_time/10_10 Revision Result N chromium@457298 22.145 +- 1.02685 21 good chromium@458255 22.1382 +- 1.04603 21 bad To Run This Test ./src/out/Release/cc_perftests --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --verbose Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983218608438517984 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5816063981256704 | 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!
,
Apr 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983149733464493072
,
Apr 5 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: linux_perf_bisect Benchmark : cc_perftests Metric : calc_draw_props_time/10_10 Revision Result N chromium@457953 25.0974 +- 2.14526 21 good chromium@458590 25.0659 +- 2.42065 21 bad To Run This Test ./src/out/Release/cc_perftests --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --verbose Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983149733464493072 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5891943436910592 | 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!
,
Apr 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983034680766855984
,
Apr 7 2017
,
Apr 7 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author jaydasika@chromium.org === Hi jaydasika@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 : jaydasika Commit : 3a6b144350b8c18f94c48143414031627572dd41 Date : Tue Mar 21 23:11:19 2017 Subject: cc : Clean up cc clip tree Bisect Details Configuration: linux_perf_bisect Benchmark : cc_perftests Metric : calc_draw_props_time/10_10 Change : 9.01% | 24.8878240585 -> 27.1309124629 Revision Result N chromium@457953 24.8878 +- 0.242215 6 good chromium@458363 24.9003 +- 0.704082 6 good chromium@458568 24.625 +- 0.782547 9 good chromium@458594 25.1447 +- 2.72792 9 good chromium@458596 25.4285 +- 4.61899 9 good chromium@458597 27.3514 +- 0.488557 9 bad <-- chromium@458598 27.4423 +- 0.393615 9 bad chromium@458601 27.3568 +- 0.842382 9 bad chromium@458607 27.4433 +- 0.695389 9 bad chromium@458620 27.4505 +- 0.729159 9 bad chromium@458671 27.4694 +- 0.36264 6 bad chromium@458773 27.4763 +- 0.343013 6 bad chromium@459592 27.1309 +- 0.30064 6 bad To Run This Test ./src/out/Release/cc_perftests --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --verbose Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8983034680766855984 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5812691559514112 | 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!
,
Apr 7 2017
The regression is about 20% at the 95th percentile on Android Dev according to UMA, and about 10% according to the bisect in #7.
,
Apr 7 2017
,
May 13 2017
This regression is from the new clips cache patch. We did expect a little (5-10%) regression in CDP time with that patch based on experiments on cluster telemetry but not a 20% regression. But the 5-10% estimation was on the average and not on the 95th percentile. I am unsure if I will be able to look at this. So, changing the status to Available.
,
May 15 2017
Enne noticed one thing which might be improved, sending to them for next step.
,
Jun 6 2017
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519 commit 3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519 Author: Adrienne Walker <enne@chromium.org> Date: Tue Jun 06 01:10:43 2017 Speed up property tree clip map caching This looks like a ~3% win on Linux for cdp speed by removing the heap allocation and storing cached vectors local to the clip node. I don't know if this will fix the entire regression, but seems faster. Other things tried locally were having a global map and a global vector of clips, and neither of these were huge wins. Bug: 708252 Cq-Include-Trybots: master.tryserver.blink:linux_trusty_blink_rel Change-Id: I8df7b92535c010cf21de56199bf3f731cc004b44 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/506467 Commit-Queue: enne <enne@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#477138} [modify] https://crrev.com/3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519/cc/trees/clip_node.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519/cc/trees/clip_node.h [modify] https://crrev.com/3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519/cc/trees/draw_property_utils.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/3b1aebb2d7e44f3e5d03dadb62b1f67a42612519/cc/trees/property_tree.cc
,
Sep 19 2017
https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=ad5f4878b439567079570ef5c376ea2037658fc979113f6941f4bed35be29000&start_rev=441040&end_rev=502251 This change fixed the original regression. Additionally switching from gcc to clang was a similar win. |
||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Apr 4 2017