Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
11.8% regression in loading.desktop at 500027:500119 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Sep 12 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968648614395850992
,
Sep 12 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author elawrence@chromium.org === Hi elawrence@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 : Eric Lawrence Commit : 7dbeb2d882cbc41dc9c66021c4ac335f033e4322 Date : Wed Sep 06 20:58:40 2017 Subject: Add field trial config for HTTPBad Phase 2 Bisect Details Configuration: winx64ati_perf_bisect Benchmark : loading.desktop Metric : timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/IndiaTimes Change : 9.29% | 1230.46561905 -> 1344.71728572 Revision Result N chromium@500026 1230.47 +- 782.768 21 good chromium@500073 1197.89 +- 64.9652 9 good chromium@500079 1199.43 +- 201.545 9 good chromium@500082 1207.24 +- 521.156 14 good chromium@500083 1143.88 +- 54.5512 6 good chromium@500084 1332.42 +- 207.481 9 bad <-- chromium@500085 1370.15 +- 716.64 14 bad chromium@500096 1339.31 +- 365.266 9 bad chromium@500119 1344.72 +- 752.401 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=IndiaTimes loading.desktop More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968648614395850992 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Sep 12 2017
Interesting. http://www.indiatimes.com triggers the HTTPBad Phase 2 editing notification on page load. It uses Modernizr on page load to find out what features the client supports; one of those things involves editing an input control in such a way that it fires the DidChangeValueInTextField event. http://webdbg.com/test/forms/modernizr.html is the minimal repro, showing "Not secure" even without the user interacting with the page in any way.
,
Sep 13 2017
,
Sep 14 2017
I'm kind of confused how drawing the security chip affects time to first contentful paint. Does animating it in block the first contentful paint...? If so, that seems bad, so should we not animate the chip (just appear it) if it appears before contentful paint?
,
Sep 15 2017
cc-ing the test-owners for comments.
,
Sep 16 2017
The functional bug that led to the performance regression is now fixed in 63.0.3217.0, but we still don't have an explanation for why showing the security chip would impact time to first paint. There are other scenarios in which this chip will show (e.g. a HTTP page with a password field) and these scenarios will become more common as we start showing "Not Secure" on all HTTP sites.
,
Sep 18 2017
kouhei, ksakamoto: ping on helping security chip folks understand its impact on first paint?
,
Oct 18 2017
Assigning to a test owner for follow up on the question in #6. While this specific regression no longer exists, we do not expect the warning UI previously firing here to impact page load time in any way, and we do plan to start showing this warning UI more often in the future, so understanding why the test was impacted would be helpful.
,
Oct 18 2017
Also adding Ned re #6 and #10 since this likely impacts more benchmarks too.
,
Jan 8 2018
It sounds like the regression is fixed. If there's still a question about how the loading metrics work, tdresser's team might be able to help over email.
,
Jan 8 2018
RE #12: Thanks for the pointer. This immediate regression was fixed by not entering this state on that site, but the regression is likely to come right back when https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/843456 gets enabled and shows the UI for all HTTP sites. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Sep 12 2017