Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
14.1%-248.2% regression in thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases at 502251:502439 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Sep 19 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968030474617579600
,
Sep 19 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author bpastene@chromium.org === Hi bpastene@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 : Benjamin Pastene Commit : ef0f6ece2dcbcfdbfe15c8dbb6178fa324826b0a Date : Fri Sep 15 23:31:28 2017 Subject: Remove android_devices dimension from perf android swarming tests. Bisect Details Configuration: linux_perf_bisect Benchmark : thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases Metric : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/text_constant_full_page_raster_90000_pixels_per_second Change : 33.45% | 4.79374828518 -> 6.39708888889 Revision Result N chromium@502250 4.79375 +- 0.390147 6 good chromium@502345 5.47473 +- 1.50722 6 good chromium@502392 5.0532 +- 1.17612 6 good chromium@502416 5.46583 +- 0.636434 6 good chromium@502428 5.43934 +- 0.780359 6 good chromium@502434 5.27602 +- 0.890702 6 good chromium@502437 5.31176 +- 0.578643 6 good chromium@502438 5.48943 +- 0.583349 6 good chromium@502439 6.39709 +- 0.512074 6 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=text.constant.full.page.raster.90000.pixels.per.second thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968030474617579600 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Sep 19 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968019144464722032
,
Sep 19 2017
+martiniss, eyaich: I started another job to double-check this. Could this CL affect performance?
,
Sep 19 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: linux_perf_bisect Benchmark : thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases Metric : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/text_constant_full_page_raster_90000_pixels_per_second Change : 34.00% | 4.89817536998 -> 6.56347504894 Suspected Commit Range 3 commits in range https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/387cce38aa459ed49bc4e4a0bd7ec390d77563a0..b56be486bfbc02d9421435603e77231ae7cb924b Revision Result N chromium@502250 4.89818 +- 0.451236 6 good chromium@502253 5.4308 +- 1.24607 14 good chromium@502254 --- --- build failure chromium@502255 --- --- build failure chromium@502256 5.52346 +- 1.43902 14 bad chromium@502262 5.84723 +- 0.514245 6 bad chromium@502274 5.95784 +- 0.783245 6 bad chromium@502298 5.88293 +- 0.808613 6 bad chromium@502345 5.81012 +- 0.726763 6 bad chromium@502439 6.56348 +- 1.11365 6 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=text.constant.full.page.raster.90000.pixels.per.second thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968019144464722032 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Oct 24 2017
+Ned: the other bisect didn't complete, but in both we see a jump at r502439, "Remove android_devices dimension from perf android swarming tests". Any idea what could be going on here?
,
Oct 25 2017
That change definitely should have been an effective no-op (the same tests are still running on the same bots) But it's safe to revert if we want to try that.
,
Oct 25 2017
Ben is right that the change should be no-op. I think it's just due to chance that we have a jump at r502439. Is it possible to rerun bisect on that revision to confirm?
,
Jan 5 2018
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Sep 19 2017