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

Issue 719541 link

Starred by 1 user
Status: WontFix
Owner: ----
Closed: Jul 2017
Cc:
khmel@chromium.org
jbroman@chromium.org
█ kraynov@google.com
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

29.8% regression in blink_perf.dom at 469248:469301

Project Member Reported by kraynov@chromium.org, May 8 2017 
See the link to graphs below.

Comment 1 by kraynov@chromium.org, May 8 2017 

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=719541

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDgirS8hAsM


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel
Project Member

Comment 4 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 8 2017 


=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect failed unexpectedly

Bisect was aborted with the following:
  Step('Bisecting revision.Post bisect results (3)') failed with return_code 1


Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : blink_perf.dom
  Metric       : remove_child_with_selection/remove_child_with_selection

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@469247      1.59083 +- 0.0402596      6      good
chromium@469261      1.63633 +- 0.0854712      6      bad
chromium@469274      1.63989 +- 0.137451       9      bad
chromium@469301      1.63967 +- 0.0261789      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.dom

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8980150434742078336

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5831275643928576


| 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!
Project Member

Comment 6 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 8 2017 


=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Error: INFRA_FAILURE

The bisect was able to narrow the range, you can try running with:
  good_revision: 0e21b049f7e29614a89c13fed4fcf40cc74d937d
  bad_revision : c2fe004639a9a21fff08b6de088f052a0c5060b8

If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : blink_perf.dom
  Metric       : remove_child_with_selection/remove_child_with_selection

Revision             Result                   N
chromium@469247      2.076 +- 0.0938829       6      good
chromium@469274      2.19522 +- 0.144719      9      bad
chromium@469301      2.2005 +- 0.0991337      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.dom

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8980150422152709824

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5978913936769024


| 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!
Project Member

Comment 8 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 9 2017

Cc: khmel@chromium.org
Owner: khmel@chromium.org

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author khmel@chromium.org ===

Hi khmel@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 : khmel
  Commit : 8e5c71bb45953bfbbcbb49f1124a33ed47d02763
  Date   : Thu May 04 02:31:37 2017
  Subject: Fix DefaultApps unit test

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : blink_perf.dom
  Metric       : remove_child_with_selection/remove_child_with_selection
  Change       : 4.48% | 1.58978571429 -> 1.6485

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@469247      1.58979 +- 0.117466       14      good
chromium@469248      1.63967 +- 0.0292461      6       bad       <--
chromium@469249      1.63283 +- 0.0286153      6       bad
chromium@469251      1.6189 +- 0.216587        21      bad
chromium@469254      1.6085 +- 0.0589534       14      bad
chromium@469261      1.623 +- 0.0277849        6       bad
chromium@469274      1.62 +- 0.0252982         6       bad
chromium@469301      1.6485 +- 0.030422        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.dom

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8980118611360976864

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5978913936769024


| 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!
Project Member

Comment 9 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 9 2017

Cc: calamity@chromium.org
Owner: calamity@chromium.org

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author calamity@chromium.org ===

Hi calamity@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 : calamity
  Commit : a32022824f01698ab161130a96c2832a8226bb46
  Date   : Thu May 04 06:00:02 2017
  Subject: [MD Bookmarks] Right click on bookmark items open context menu.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : blink_perf.dom
  Metric       : remove_child_with_selection/remove_child_with_selection
  Change       : 9.47% | 2.04655555556 -> 2.18035714286

Revision             Result                   N
chromium@469247      2.04656 +- 0.274183      9       good
chromium@469274      2.12714 +- 0.297368      14      good
chromium@469279      2.07007 +- 0.409345      14      good
chromium@469280      2.0875 +- 0.119019       6       good
chromium@469281      2.22429 +- 0.466715      14      bad       <--
chromium@469301      2.18036 +- 0.435446      14      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.dom

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8980122382952670400

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5831275643928576


| 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 10 by calamity@chromium.org, Jul 17 2017

Cc: -calamity@chromium.org
Owner: ----
Am fairly sure adding a context menu did not break blink

Comment 11 by sullivan@chromium.org, Jul 17 2017

Cc: jbroman@chromium.org
Status: WontFix (was: Untriaged)
WontFix-ing this because the bisects are not reproducing.

But cc-ing jbroman, owner of blink_perf.dom benchmark: the graphs look really weird. On the windows devices, the reference build shifts in the OPPOSITE direction as ToT, after having regressed for no apparent reason a few days earlier. Not sure if it's worth the time to investigate this happening on a single bot? You can find the build logs with details on hardware here:

Before ToT regressed:
https://luci-logdog.appspot.com/v/?s=chrome%2Fbb%2Fchromium.perf%2FWin_7_Intel_GPU_Perf%2F718%2F%2B%2Frecipes%2Fsteps%2Fblink_perf.dom_on_Intel_GPU_on_Windows_on_Windows-2008ServerR2-SP1%2F0%2Fstdout

After:
https://luci-logdog.appspot.com/v/?s=chrome%2Fbb%2Fchromium.perf%2FWin_7_Intel_GPU_Perf%2F719%2F%2B%2Frecipes%2Fsteps%2Fblink_perf.dom_on_Intel_GPU_on_Windows_on_Windows-2008ServerR2-SP1%2F0%2Fstdout
►

Sign in to add a comment