Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
2.1% regression in system_health.memory_mobile at 490539:490626 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Aug 2 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972367894509351616
,
Aug 2 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_mobile Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:malloc:effective_size_avg/load_tools/load_tools_stackoverflow Revision Result N chromium@490538 41647649 +- 1974709 21 good chromium@490626 41360853 +- 1714903 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=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.tools.stackoverflow 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/8972367894509351616 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 2 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972364473092410464
,
Aug 2 2017
Trying a bisect on a wider range, since the graph has two bumps upward.
,
Aug 2 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_nexus5X_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_mobile Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:malloc:effective_size_avg/load_tools/load_tools_stackoverflow Change : 1.91% | 40844100.0 -> 41622662.6667 Suspected Commit Range 2 commits in range https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/41b895907e65a2131803d93c690f8f43b67d7d7d..8614988bf1b12c4031f54d421feb7d34a5d71a88 Revision Result N chromium@490022 40844100 +- 939462 6 good chromium@490324 40928661 +- 726723 9 good chromium@490343 40622423 +- 1421365 14 good chromium@490352 40225405 +- 1276092 14 good chromium@490353 --- --- build failure chromium@490354 40858432 +- 1309623 9 bad chromium@490355 40833787 +- 814019 6 bad chromium@490356 41026892 +- 1332536 6 bad chromium@490358 40590305 +- 1365563 14 bad chromium@490362 41073378 +- 2212416 14 bad chromium@490400 41743404 +- 734645 6 bad chromium@490475 41477365 +- 859578 9 bad chromium@490626 41622663 +- 525749 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.tools.stackoverflow 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/8972364473092410464 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Aug 2 2017
The second bisect looks pretty noisy, and the first couldn't reproduce. Closing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Aug 2 2017