New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 777796 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Jan 2018
Cc:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

10.1% regression in blink_perf.bindings at 510366:510410

Project Member Reported by kraynov@chromium.org, Oct 24 2017

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
Project Member

Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Oct 24 2017

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=777796

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=262fbdc3c5de49da83bef3d349c62a868bd006c78b56f1c798ef611649a1d9eb


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

chromium-rel-mac11
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Oct 24 2017

Cc: rmcilroy@chromium.org
Owner: rmcilroy@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author rmcilroy@chromium.org ===

Hi rmcilroy@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 : Ross McIlroy
  Commit : ed592eb03ff0fc2e719c6e77ba63406654673b52
  Date   : Thu Oct 19 16:17:14 2017
  Subject: [Cleanup][Interpreter] Move feedback slot allocation to bytecode generator

Bisect Details
  Configuration: mac_10_11_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : blink_perf.bindings
  Metric       : first-child/first-child
  Change       : 2.09% | 787.436950571 -> 770.987698243

Revision                           Result                  N
chromium@510365                    787.437 +- 29.1944      9       good
chromium@510377                    788.013 +- 24.1666      9       good
chromium@510380                    786.983 +- 17.6277      6       good
chromium@510382                    791.485 +- 9.96709      9       good
chromium@510382,v8@0454a842d1      785.13 +- 48.091        14      good
chromium@510382,v8@3d4a982685      781.759 +- 83.6712      14      good
chromium@510382,v8@ed592eb03f      762.794 +- 46.0705      6       bad       <--
chromium@510382,v8@9b51519e52      768.26 +- 20.8901       9       bad
chromium@510382,v8@d0cf729782      761.974 +- 14.6042      6       bad
chromium@510383                    761.072 +- 34.7636      9       bad
chromium@510388                    765.084 +- 12.8348      6       bad
chromium@510410                    770.988 +- 8.56524      9       bad

Please refer to the following doc on diagnosing blink_perf regressions:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/speed/benchmark_harnesses/blink_perf.md

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8964861162832919136


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
Ross, are you planning on looking at this bug? Looks like a pretty small regression followed by a larger improvement; should we WontFix?
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
Sorry missed this somehow. Yes I agree, given the larger subsequent improvement (and the fact we saw improvements on other bots for the CL pointed out here) I think we should wontfix this.

Sign in to add a comment