New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like █ or █) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 759576 link

Starred by 1 user
Status: WontFix
Owner: ----
Closed: Oct 2017
Cc:
█ kraynov@chromium.org
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

85.5% regression in loading.desktop at 497552:497646

Project Member Reported by kraynov@chromium.org, Aug 28 2017 
See the link to graphs below.
Project Member

Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 28 2017 

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=759576

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=3db83d8896169041f3f9210eeb04ca8d0c83b74b882ed04701e1696960deef09


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

chromium-rel-win7-dual
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Aug 28 2017 


=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect failed for unknown reasons

Please contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : loading.desktop
  Metric       : timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/NatGeo


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=NatGeo loading.desktop

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970008006723851280


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Comment 6 by sullivan@chromium.org, Oct 9 2017 

Kicked of a few more bisects.
Project Member

Comment 7 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Oct 9 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: winx64ati_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : loading.desktop
  Metric       : timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/NatGeo
  Change       : 0.96% | 1181.07690477 -> 1192.39042856

Suspected Commit Range
  4 commits in range
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/7e87146b8a236a8484b480a4087d6eaac25eb8e5..0e6a31257f7aa13201eb7a1d9030bb0fc2dd2ba0


Revision             Result                  N
chromium@497548      1181.08 +- 707.611      21       good
chromium@497598      1156.42 +- 392.917      14       good
chromium@497599      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497600      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497601      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497602      1170.05 +- 287.869      14       bad
chromium@497604      1178.36 +- 296.451      21       bad
chromium@497610      1191.18 +- 9.6295       14       bad
chromium@497623      1226.44 +- 486.599      14       bad
chromium@497648      1192.39 +- 9.48092      14       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=NatGeo loading.desktop

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966193884491122384


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
Project Member

Comment 8 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Oct 10 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: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : loading.desktop
  Metric       : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/NatGeo
  Change       : 4.89% | 398.729428571 -> 379.230428571

Suspected Commit Range
  7 commits in range
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/f091c0c1b2a968a5f61dc15da2b35b87077d077a..c196e5998015478a7a8955643dcad0ba8b9ad62c


Revision             Result                  N
chromium@497546      398.729 +- 348.686      14       good
chromium@497593      400.97 +- 364.494       21       good
chromium@497594      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497595      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497596      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497597      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497598      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497599      ---                     ---      build failure
chromium@497600      356.679 +- 449.506      14       bad
chromium@497603      337.148 +- 514.938      14       bad
chromium@497609      363.189 +- 324.456      9        bad
chromium@497621      325.055 +- 508.091      14       bad
chromium@497644      379.23 +- 320.118       14       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=NatGeo loading.desktop

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966193877784532656


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Comment 9 by sullivan@chromium.org, Oct 10 2017

Status: WontFix (was: Untriaged)
Neither of those bisects actually reproduced any regression.
►

Sign in to add a comment