Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
53.3% improvement in system_health.memory_mobile at 499965:500084 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSuspiciously large improvement, could this be a bug?
,
Sep 19 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8968029914858148416
,
Sep 21 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === NO Perf regression found Bisect Details Configuration: android_one_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_mobile Metric : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:gpu:effective_size_avg/browse_chrome/browse_chrome_newtab Revision Result N chromium@499964 1235829 +- 2012754 21 good chromium@500084 1235829 +- 2012754 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=browse.chrome.newtab 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/8968029914858148416 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Dec 12 2017
Bisect unable to find culprit, this regression exists in stable. Ignoring. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Sep 19 2017