Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
65.6% regression in thread_times.key_silk_cases at 506142:506222 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Oct 4 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966629735974767728
,
Oct 4 2017
=== BISECT JOB RESULTS === Bisect failed for unknown reasons Please contact the team (see below) and report the error. Bisect Details Configuration: android_webview_nexus6_aosp_perf_bisect Benchmark : thread_times.key_silk_cases Metric : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/font_wipe.html To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-webview --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=font.wipe.html thread_times.key_silk_cases More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966629735974767728 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Oct 5 2017
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966606808545229840
,
Oct 6 2017
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author brianosman@google.com === Hi brianosman@google.com, 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 : Brian Osman Commit : 7943ecb42a7841ebff9b51eb85ac7f4937537243 Date : Tue Oct 03 20:43:12 2017 Subject: Disable SW path renderer mask caching in Skia Bisect Details Configuration: android_webview_arm64_aosp_perf_bisect Benchmark : thread_times.key_silk_cases Metric : thread_IO_cpu_time_per_frame/http___jsfiddle.net_xLuvC_1_show_ Change : 34.25% | 4.31205944171 -> 5.78875217372 Revision Result N chromium@506046 4.31206 +- 0.236927 6 good chromium@506136 4.43388 +- 0.354024 6 good chromium@506159 4.38122 +- 0.257319 6 good chromium@506162 4.32161 +- 0.438909 6 good chromium@506163 5.84679 +- 0.495085 6 bad <-- chromium@506164 5.99759 +- 0.38253 6 bad chromium@506165 5.93174 +- 0.265456 6 bad chromium@506170 5.8958 +- 0.49218 6 bad chromium@506181 5.95412 +- 0.368189 6 bad chromium@506225 5.78875 +- 0.820991 6 bad To Run This Test src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-webview --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=http...jsfiddle.net.xLuvC.1.show. thread_times.key_silk_cases More information on addressing performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Debug information about this bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8966606808545229840 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Oct 6 2017
This was a revert to previous behavior. I recently landed https://chromium.googlesource.com/skia/+/36dcd7f25d1ffee8571a7d424eb02f60cd474fa7, which added caching of mask textures when we fall back to software path rendering. That caused the speedups seen in the graphs from this bug. It also introduced some slowdowns (on the same tests!?): https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=770374 Based on that first bug, I reverted the behavior in Chrome, which led to this bug. I'm planning to investigate why things ever got slower in the first place, but we have to pick one or the other. My gut feeling is that we should enable the caching (which would fix this bug, and re-introduce the other one).
,
Jan 5 2018
brianosman: did you make a decision here?
,
Jan 5 2018
Sorry, no. Although looking at the two different perf regressions, this is cpu time on the IO thread (?), while the other one is actual fps. Given that, I'm inclined to leave things as-is.
,
Jan 5 2018
Sounds good. Marking WontFix. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Oct 4 2017