Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
23.7%-37.2% regression in media.tough_video_cases at 460219:460348 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionThese seem to be valid alerts.
,
Apr 10 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982669670586784736
,
Apr 10 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: mac_retina_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases Metric : time_to_play/video.html?src_tulip2.webm Revision Result N chromium@460283 75.5202 +- 59.9618 21 good chromium@460348 74.139 +- 63.0427 21 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=video.html.src.tulip2.webm media.tough_video_cases Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982669670586784736 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5892303744401408 | 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 10 2017
Hmm. Alert graphs showed a clear uptick. I'm unsure why the bisect failed on the outer range. Any ideas, crouleau@?
,
Apr 10 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982661504240696096
,
Apr 10 2017
I'm trying a wider bisect range on one of the clearer uptick alerts just in case.
,
Apr 11 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : dalecurtis Commit : 5285d00f561827da882c8faaa7bda1d571c4fc60 Date : Wed Mar 29 00:27:30 2017 Subject: Use AudioUnit instead of AudioDevice properties to get channel count. Bisect Details Configuration: mac_retina_perf_bisect Benchmark : media.tough_video_cases Metric : time_to_play/tulip2.webm Change : 29.60% | 54.2841666667 -> 70.35 Revision Result N chromium@460014 54.2842 +- 3.00213 6 good chromium@460211 54.5928 +- 2.23964 9 good chromium@460236 116.589 +- 526.048 9 good chromium@460249 53.9775 +- 2.19018 6 good chromium@460250 66.8533 +- 11.9378 6 bad <-- chromium@460251 71.1892 +- 13.2961 6 bad chromium@460252 67.2892 +- 10.4427 6 bad chromium@460255 69.115 +- 13.0354 6 bad chromium@460261 64.9917 +- 9.92597 9 bad chromium@460310 68.0992 +- 12.4003 6 bad chromium@460408 68.31 +- 11.7293 6 bad chromium@460802 70.35 +- 12.8409 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 media.tough_video_cases Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982661504240696096 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5802484716535808 | 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! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by wolenetz@chromium.org
, Apr 10 2017