Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
5.8%-19.8% regression in loading.desktop at 476345:476544 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jun 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977590388532640224
,
Jun 6 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author yzshen@chromium.org === Hi yzshen@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 : yzshen Commit : 2d8fb42490681813d05294e44166615c03a6aaff Date : Thu Jun 01 20:29:40 2017 Subject: This CL: Bisect Details Configuration: winx64_high_dpi_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 12.61% | 304.335666667 -> 342.723333333 Revision Result N chromium@476395 304.336 +- 42.2888 6 good chromium@476404 304.898 +- 49.4077 9 good chromium@476409 322.318 +- 92.9104 14 good chromium@476412 322.926 +- 67.6355 9 good chromium@476413 314.157 +- 49.6961 6 good chromium@476414 350.265 +- 25.5731 9 bad <-- chromium@476432 342.43 +- 27.3948 6 bad chromium@476468 344.939 +- 50.1883 6 bad chromium@476540 342.723 +- 28.9262 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 --story-filter=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977590388532640224 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6414524879470592 | 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!
,
Jun 6 2017
Issue 729782 has been merged into this issue.
,
Jun 6 2017
Hmm... This code shouldn't have any effect without --enable-network-service. Thanks for the report. I will take a look.
,
Jun 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519755682593968
,
Jun 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519709443513552
,
Jun 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519701175132176
,
Jun 6 2017
,
Jun 6 2017
Reading the code, I think one possible cause is ThrottlingURLLoader has many fields that are used to cache various arguments when the request is deferred. Usually they are not needed. I will group them into structs and holds std::unique_ptr<> to them to save the initialization cost. See whether that helps.
,
Jun 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: mac_air_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/FC2Blog Revision Result N chromium@476502 345.73 +- 515.588 21 good chromium@476601 273.316 +- 650.194 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=FC2Blog loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519709443513552 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5808158175395840 | 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!
,
Jun 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977510176354108336
,
Jun 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Revision Result N chromium@476525 874.835 +- 61.6352 21 good chromium@476615 874.671 +- 77.3791 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=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519701175132176 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5854544895934464 | 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!
,
Jun 6 2017
,
Jun 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : yzshen Commit : 2d8fb42490681813d05294e44166615c03a6aaff Date : Thu Jun 01 20:29:40 2017 Subject: This CL: Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 25.50% | 233.247833333 -> 292.723333333 Revision Result N chromium@476344 233.248 +- 18.8978 6 good chromium@476390 230.334 +- 6.94426 6 good chromium@476413 231.489 +- 4.05198 6 good chromium@476414 286.189 +- 22.7022 6 bad <-- chromium@476415 288.072 +- 28.5334 6 bad chromium@476416 280.916 +- 9.99679 6 bad chromium@476419 290.367 +- 24.2565 6 bad chromium@476424 287.77 +- 29.5322 6 bad chromium@476435 286.594 +- 22.5082 6 bad chromium@476525 292.723 +- 36.0698 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 --story-filter=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977519755682593968 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4989019194130432 | 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!
,
Jun 6 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977506401452416688
,
Jun 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: mac_air_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/FC2Blog Revision Result N chromium@476502 284.443 +- 715.456 21 good chromium@476601 322.782 +- 518.114 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=FC2Blog loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977510176354108336 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5808158175395840 | 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!
,
Jun 6 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Revision Result N chromium@476525 877.047 +- 56.8845 21 good chromium@476615 878.858 +- 69.2526 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=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977506401452416688 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5854544895934464 | 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!
,
Jun 7 2017
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7 commit e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7 Author: yzshen <yzshen@chromium.org> Date: Wed Jun 07 17:05:13 2017 Make content::ThrottlingURLLoader take a task runner and more efficient. - The task runner is used to dispatch URLLoaderClient messages. - Previously it had got many members to cache params when operations were deferred. This CL groups those params into structs and only creates instances when necessary. BUG= 729769 , 715673 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2926693002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#477687} [modify] https://crrev.com/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7/content/child/resource_dispatcher.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7/content/child/url_loader_client_impl.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7/content/child/url_loader_client_impl.h [modify] https://crrev.com/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7/content/common/throttling_url_loader.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/e2e435ef7d38319633f7a01d051f2760af8806c7/content/common/throttling_url_loader.h
,
Jun 8 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977325197612928624
,
Jun 8 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977325112568172400
,
Jun 8 2017
About bisect of #20 and #21: I tried CL https://codereview.chromium.org/2926693002 locally and it did appear to fix the regression. However, on bots the perf numbers didn't restore to previous level. I noticed that on some bots (chromium-rel-win7-dual) the numbers improved to where they were with my fix, but got worse on the next run. That made me think that maybe there was some other regression crept in right after my fix. Therefore I did bisects of #20 and #21 to be sure.
,
Jun 9 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found but unable to narrow commit range Build failures prevented the bisect from narrowing the range further. Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 6.14% | 831.203833333 -> 882.227333333 Suspected Commit Range 2 commits in range https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/7c8bd685a9baeff5169fd4cc63422a69d56b1046..856592d9bae5db8f6550e85e11f71405255e2993 Revision Result N chromium@477751 831.204 +- 6.64567 6 good chromium@477759 831.536 +- 21.7228 14 good chromium@477760 --- --- build failure chromium@477761 835.623 +- 21.5961 14 bad chromium@477763 836.633 +- 16.7987 9 bad chromium@477766 866.895 +- 64.8574 9 bad chromium@477781 871.328 +- 74.6519 9 bad chromium@477810 875.864 +- 37.5517 6 bad chromium@477869 882.227 +- 41.8297 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 --story-filter=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977325197612928624 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5730003595034624 | 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!
,
Jun 9 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977285468908267088
,
Jun 9 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977285424698654512
,
Jun 9 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author rockot@chromium.org === Hi rockot@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 : Ken Rockot Commit : 1caed9e9b41dfa2485d899edde6aacc64c907c9f Date : Wed Jun 07 21:31:19 2017 Subject: Mojo C++ Bindings: Eliminate CreateInterfacePtrAndBind Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 12.03% | 216.957888889 -> 243.051666667 Revision Result N chromium@477751 216.958 +- 22.7489 9 good chromium@477759 215.653 +- 20.1498 9 good chromium@477763 215.224 +- 19.192 9 good chromium@477765 213.197 +- 16.1296 9 good chromium@477766 250.124 +- 44.4726 9 bad <-- chromium@477781 245.14 +- 49.4012 9 bad chromium@477810 262.823 +- 20.6992 6 bad chromium@477869 243.052 +- 39.8065 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 --story-filter=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977325112568172400 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4510560642662400 | 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!
,
Jun 9 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : Ken Rockot Commit : 1caed9e9b41dfa2485d899edde6aacc64c907c9f Date : Wed Jun 07 21:31:19 2017 Subject: Mojo C++ Bindings: Eliminate CreateInterfacePtrAndBind Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 8.61% | 862.242357143 -> 936.465222222 Revision Result N chromium@477751 862.242 +- 46.7196 14 good chromium@477759 857.517 +- 23.1195 6 good chromium@477763 861.673 +- 22.4565 6 good chromium@477765 851.275 +- 12.2871 6 good chromium@477766 910.457 +- 22.839 6 bad <-- chromium@477781 910.135 +- 74.7677 9 bad chromium@477810 892.552 +- 67.2728 9 bad chromium@477869 936.465 +- 271.365 9 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=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977285468908267088 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5325327313666048 | 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!
,
Jun 9 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : Ken Rockot Commit : 1caed9e9b41dfa2485d899edde6aacc64c907c9f Date : Wed Jun 07 21:31:19 2017 Subject: Mojo C++ Bindings: Eliminate CreateInterfacePtrAndBind Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 15.33% | 216.012714286 -> 248.450111111 Revision Result N chromium@477751 216.013 +- 25.6755 14 good chromium@477759 214.251 +- 12.718 6 good chromium@477763 214.947 +- 15.464 6 good chromium@477765 214.853 +- 15.1634 6 good chromium@477766 258.669 +- 15.9077 6 bad <-- chromium@477781 236.966 +- 66.6454 14 bad chromium@477810 255.918 +- 66.8269 9 bad chromium@477869 248.45 +- 43.1648 9 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=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977285424698654512 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5904584721039360 | 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!
,
Jun 9 2017
My change was a mechanical inlining of some code that was probably already inlined by the compiler. I don't believe there's any way this could cause such a regression.
,
Jun 9 2017
Yeah. It seems unlikely. The system automatically re-assigned the bug when it got the result; assigned it back to myself.
,
Jun 9 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977253357993940816
,
Jun 9 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : Ken Rockot Commit : 1caed9e9b41dfa2485d899edde6aacc64c907c9f Date : Wed Jun 07 21:31:19 2017 Subject: Mojo C++ Bindings: Eliminate CreateInterfacePtrAndBind Bisect Details Configuration: mac_10_11_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/IndiaTimes Change : 11.00% | 246.212666667 -> 273.2945 Revision Result N chromium@477710 246.213 +- 7.42199 6 good chromium@477748 246.466 +- 6.77184 6 good chromium@477758 249.601 +- 12.4014 6 good chromium@477763 247.444 +- 4.87909 6 good chromium@477765 246.017 +- 12.2668 6 good chromium@477766 269.776 +- 11.5145 6 bad <-- chromium@477767 272.486 +- 7.25244 6 bad chromium@477786 273.294 +- 6.20295 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 --story-filter=IndiaTimes loading.desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977253357993940816 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5876962981052416 | 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!
,
Jun 9 2017
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/511543cca3d300f35c0f1556cec42a95f634d1b9 commit 511543cca3d300f35c0f1556cec42a95f634d1b9 Author: yzshen <yzshen@chromium.org> Date: Fri Jun 09 22:50:53 2017 Fix ThrottlingURLLoader to set task runner on Binding<URLLoaderClient>. The recent change of massively removing CreateInterfaceAndBind() incorrectly set the task runner on the URLLoaderClientPtr. This regressed loading performance. BUG= 729769 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2925343003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#478440} [modify] https://crrev.com/511543cca3d300f35c0f1556cec42a95f634d1b9/content/common/throttling_url_loader.cc
,
Jun 12 2017
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by m...@chromium.org
, Jun 5 2017