Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
2.2%-4.3% regression in system_health.memory_desktop at 476761:476890 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jun 19 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976338375925498960
,
Jun 19 2017
,
Jun 20 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author khushalsagar@chromium.org === Hi khushalsagar@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 : khushalsagar Commit : 5867068aa6d1677d3ff8a9da36ba793757b171aa Date : Fri Jun 02 22:11:04 2017 Subject: cc: Workaround invalid property tree state on Layers. Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_desktop Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_social/load_social_vk Change : 1.66% | 119006094.778 -> 121347316.0 Revision Result N chromium@476760 119006095 +- 1208224 9 good chromium@476793 119158281 +- 2107788 14 good chromium@476809 119252728 +- 2153324 14 good chromium@476810 119097452 +- 1591092 14 good chromium@476811 120696641 +- 3553642 9 bad <-- chromium@476825 120595069 +- 6002123 14 bad chromium@476890 121347316 +- 2182416 9 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=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.social.vk system_health.memory_desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976338375925498960 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6623559629144064 | 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 20 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976247853557746896
,
Jun 20 2017
I highly doubt that change would regress memory. All it was doing was avoiding a null pointer access right after commit. I have triggered another bisect.
,
Jun 20 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect failed unexpectedly
Bisect was aborted with the following:
Step('Bisecting revision.Post bisect results (2)') failed with return_code 1
Bisect Details
Configuration: win_perf_bisect
Benchmark : system_health.memory_desktop
Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_social/load_social_vk
Revision Result N
chromium@476760 123930525 +- 2228626 9 good
chromium@476825 124569757 +- 4795941 14 good
chromium@476890 126634201 +- 3777005 9 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=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.social.vk system_health.memory_desktop
Debug Info
https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976247853557746896
Is this bisect wrong?
https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5790238447763456
| 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 20 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976238044037504592
,
Jun 20 2017
,
Jun 21 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : hans Commit : 8476c55fd44915447233200c063fcd426dfe9807 Date : Sat Jun 03 03:58:11 2017 Subject: Re-commit "win: Set is_clang=true by default" over the weekend. Bisect Details Configuration: win_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_desktop Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_social/load_social_vk Change : 2.30% | 119699883.667 -> 122290835.357 Revision Result N chromium@476760 119699884 +- 4461442 9 good chromium@476825 119090913 +- 1242636 6 good chromium@476858 120131738 +- 5345319 14 good chromium@476874 120161358 +- 5739610 14 good chromium@476882 119804162 +- 3544592 14 good chromium@476883 120055836 +- 6067831 14 good chromium@476884 122396544 +- 5486684 14 bad <-- chromium@476886 121662432 +- 5790476 14 bad chromium@476890 122290835 +- 4805275 14 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=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.social.vk system_health.memory_desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976238044037504592 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5790238447763456 | 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 etienneb@chromium.org
, Jun 19 2017