Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
3% regression in system_health.memory_desktop at 482373:482485 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jun 29 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found but unable to continue Bisect was stopped because a commit couldn't be classified as either good or bad. Bisect Details Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_desktop Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_search/load_search_taobao Revision Result N chromium@482372 189259805 +- 4715081 21 good chromium@482429 189942530 +- 5905689 21 unknown chromium@482485 190213796 +- 4439772 21 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_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.search.taobao system_health.memory_desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8975459587620406912 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6400231479967744 | 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 29 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8975453167774211664
,
Jun 29 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : perezju Commit : b4eb70c319cb0f38d1a7764e7d9fb56dc96f8bcf Date : Mon Jun 26 14:25:41 2017 Subject: [System Health] Extend dump time to 5 seconds Bisect Details Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_desktop Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_search/load_search_taobao Change : 2.75% | 189747800.0 -> 194958137.333 Revision Result N chromium@482229 189747800 +- 3228747 6 good chromium@482261 189842042 +- 2429223 6 good chromium@482277 190179298 +- 2883370 9 good chromium@482281 189520126 +- 3742377 9 good chromium@482282 189234025 +- 1556945 6 good chromium@482282,catapult@b4eb70c319 192415459 +- 3023421 6 bad <-- chromium@482283 192486607 +- 2253674 6 bad chromium@482285 190380572 +- 18040730 9 bad chromium@482293 192811002 +- 2374139 6 bad chromium@482357 193715561 +- 1462914 6 bad chromium@482485 194958137 +- 2782776 6 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_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.search.taobao system_health.memory_desktop Debug Info https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8975453167774211664 Is this bisect wrong? https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5817250335948800 | 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 29 2017
I think here we're after some regression in: chromium@482285 190380572 +- 18040730 9 bad chromium@482293 192811002 +- 2374139 6 bad chromium@482357 193715561 +- 1462914 6 bad chromium@482485 194958137 +- 2782776 6 bad I'll de-dupe and try again.
,
Jul 3 2017
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Jun 29 2017