Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
1.1% regression in system_health.memory_mobile at 488242:488346 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jul 24 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8973189684075428864
,
Jul 24 2017
,
Jul 24 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: android_nexus6_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_mobile Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:proportional_resident_size_avg/load_social/load_social_twitter Change : 0.57% | 111147708.0 -> 111645201.333 Suspected Commit Range 2 commits in range https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/cebc240fa5341246c73991f63895668c258aadf5..a5440da5368274d653ec5e675eddc9cf65d13725 Revision Result N chromium@488241 111147708 +- 763719 14 good chromium@488256 110978236 +- 477038 6 good chromium@488262 110880103 +- 946411 9 good chromium@488265 111092705 +- 691306 14 good chromium@488266 --- --- build failure chromium@488267 111361870 +- 752627 14 bad chromium@488268 111348412 +- 820874 14 bad chromium@488294 111384480 +- 535772 9 bad chromium@488346 111645201 +- 170793 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=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.social.twitter system_health.memory_mobile More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8973189684075428864 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Sep 14 2017
+timvolodine: this is a really old bug, but looking at the bisect results, r488266 seems the likely culprit. Anything we can do here?
,
Oct 25 2017
Looks like there wasn't much to do here.
,
Oct 25 2017
Yes sorry this fell off my radar. It would be surprising if r488266 had any noticeable impact on memory since it only implements a fallback strategy for the 'deviceorienationabsolute' api. In any case this functionality is being refactored in the context of generic sensors in chromium, so don't think there is anything to do here indeed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Jul 24 2017