Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
1.9%-471.1% regression in loading.desktop at 490023:490345 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionLooking at the affected metrics it seems to be a paint/raster related regression which affects loading.desktop/timeToFCP and timeToFMP smoothness.tough_webgl_cases rasterize_and_record_micro
,
Jul 31 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972524225352733792
,
Aug 1 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: mac_10_12_mini_8gb_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/FarsNews Revision Result N chromium@490022 3242.39 +- 4874.49 20 good chromium@490245 2190.84 +- 6761.8 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=FarsNews loading.desktop More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972524225352733792 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 3 2017
,
Aug 24 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970364620671134000
,
Aug 24 2017
There is a significant regression in "blink_perf.bindings / set-attribute" which could regress things like the WebGL & Canvas benchmarks. https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=084c8e63f64bf642f433530983e7159c09859fdc77d9d149d0a3aade00dabea3&rev=490345
,
Aug 24 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970364159315918672
,
Aug 24 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author jmadill@chromium.org === Hi jmadill@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 : Jamie Madill Commit : 4c19a8a82b2e93f936ea38c4772ce0182cd3dc2a Date : Wed Jul 26 16:44:57 2017 Subject: D3D11: Update cached dynamically recompiled programs. Bisect Details Configuration: winx64ati_perf_bisect Benchmark : smoothness.tough_animation_cases Metric : frame_times/css_value_type_shadow.html?api_css_animations_N_0316 Change : 30.73% | 25.5609501025 -> 33.4156938037 Revision Result N chromium@490131 25.561 +- 20.824 9 good chromium@490148 23.6293 +- 20.4612 9 good chromium@490152 23.9759 +- 20.0302 9 good chromium@490154 19.2911 +- 4.50028 6 good chromium@490155 25.2472 +- 19.4662 9 good chromium@490155,angle@17d270311e 25.8422 +- 24.6809 14 good chromium@490155,angle@4c56c607f4 28.2183 +- 17.7047 9 good chromium@490155,angle@b6664925cb 31.1856 +- 10.873 9 good chromium@490155,angle@4c19a8a82b 33.4225 +- 1.25829 21 bad <-- chromium@490156 33.418 +- 1.00013 14 bad chromium@490164 33.498 +- 0.703752 6 bad chromium@490196 33.4887 +- 0.42554 6 bad chromium@490260 33.4157 +- 0.856062 9 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=css.value.type.shadow.html.api.css.animations.N.0316 smoothness.tough_animation_cases More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970364620671134000 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 24 2017
Uh oh. Question, why does the result go from bad to good with my CL?
,
Aug 24 2017
The ANGLE regression was fixed in https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/531798 and the graphs have already recovered. Needs further triage for the other regressions.
,
Aug 25 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author agrieve@chromium.org === Hi agrieve@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 : Andrew Grieve Commit : 767a6f5a890a6028a1d8a8f30cea242b568e6cee Date : Fri Jul 28 18:11:29 2017 Subject: Android: Add Zip Overhead breakdown to resource_sizes.py Bisect Details Configuration: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect Benchmark : blink_perf.bindings Metric : set-attribute/set-attribute Change : 13.04% | 852.127659 -> 740.976761564 Revision Result N chromium@490218 852.128 +- 3.80316 6 good chromium@490383 855.891 +- 5.69566 6 good chromium@490465 839.533 +- 8.00877 9 good chromium@490466 849.744 +- 10.0413 6 bad <-- chromium@490467 849.864 +- 14.8519 9 bad chromium@490468 849.0 +- 4.22416 6 bad chromium@490471 857.825 +- 4.1953 6 bad chromium@490476 854.668 +- 7.91506 6 bad chromium@490486 813.005 +- 358.247 9 bad chromium@490506 736.029 +- 3.45797 6 bad chromium@490547 740.977 +- 7.12472 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.bindings More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970364159315918672 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 25 2017
#11 is a strange bisect result. Un-assigning Andrew and running again on a narrower range. sullivan: The large regression is the drop from ~854 to ~736, but the bisect narrowed in on a change which was within the noise +/- 10 noise.
,
Aug 25 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970330513512243568
,
Aug 25 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Perf regression found with culprit Suspected Commit Author : Hans Wennborg Commit : d2c91228a51bdf37ae3b2e501fb53c0528f1629c Date : Fri Jul 28 20:11:05 2017 Subject: win: Set is_clang=true by default Bisect Details Configuration: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect Benchmark : blink_perf.bindings Metric : set-attribute/set-attribute Change : 13.37% | 853.013931152 -> 739.003396065 Revision Result N chromium@490476 853.014 +- 10.4747 6 good chromium@490491 853.481 +- 2.3588 6 good chromium@490493 861.817 +- 9.9443 6 good chromium@490494 743.362 +- 8.10611 6 bad <-- chromium@490495 738.962 +- 8.26932 6 bad chromium@490499 739.211 +- 6.24375 6 bad chromium@490506 739.003 +- 4.9182 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.bindings More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970330513512243568 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 25 2017
Un-duping based on Hans' request in Issue 750923 . That issue was fixed, but this regression in blink_perf.bindings has not recovered.
,
Aug 25 2017
The clang=1 patch was reverted last Friday. The "All graphs for this bug" link above doesn't show me any graphs. Can you confirm whether performance recovered or not? If not, it's probably not clang related.
,
Aug 25 2017
Re #16: I triaged the blink_perf alert that bisected in #14 back into this bug, the link should show it now. It does seem to have recovered with the revert on Friday. Re #12: Thanks for the report, Victor! Simon, Dave, the bisect in #11 may be a good test case for pinpoint/multiple regressions.
,
Aug 25 2017
,
Aug 25 2017
This has recovered, so closing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Jul 31 2017