Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
23.3% regression in loading.desktop at 500377:500474 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Sep 12 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968648642898391920
,
Sep 12 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/Mercadolivre Revision Result N chromium@500376 86.1377 +- 28.7219 21 good chromium@500474 84.2921 +- 28.1096 21 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=Mercadolivre loading.desktop More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968648642898391920 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Oct 19 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8965301362976235760
,
Oct 19 2017
Bisecting on a wider range.
,
Oct 19 2017
Issue 764342 has been merged into this issue.
,
Oct 19 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author xunjieli@chromium.org === Hi xunjieli@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 : xunjieli Commit : 724bb776bcdea642a5bc9cc20fe14bb0282b4900 Date : Wed Sep 06 14:29:20 2017 Subject: [Telemetry] Use --ignore-certificate-errors-spki-list to bypass cert errors Bisect Details Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/Mercadolivre Change : 18.98% | 88.6862142857 -> 105.518142857 Revision Result N chromium@500264 88.6862 +- 7.99407 14 good chromium@500341 89.5953 +- 2.48104 6 good chromium@500344 89.9207 +- 3.81362 6 good chromium@500344,catapult@c5a474f50f 88.992 +- 2.87489 6 good chromium@500344,catapult@724bb776bc 113.295 +- 14.3343 6 bad <-- chromium@500344,catapult@80c47581b1 101.424 +- 19.9661 6 bad chromium@500344,catapult@4f611510b9 108.429 +- 19.4748 6 bad chromium@500344,catapult@442f46edf7 104.295 +- 19.8032 6 bad chromium@500345 107.234 +- 16.6696 6 bad chromium@500346 106.81 +- 23.6971 6 bad chromium@500351 107.651 +- 14.818 6 bad chromium@500361 103.941 +- 18.8473 6 bad chromium@500380 101.36 +- 20.5327 6 bad chromium@500418 106.613 +- 5.62508 6 bad chromium@500572 105.518 +- 72.4144 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=Mercadolivre loading.desktop More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8965301362976235760 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Oct 19 2017
cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg increased for Mercadolivre site. https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=00e5177dc24fbe19cdeb0c654702f83676f4f769fe67bf39130ac89bab04983d&start_rev=498039&end_rev=502757 The increase seems small and should not be a concern. I will mark this as WontFix as this is an infra change and not a real regression. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Sep 12 2017