New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 785074 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 785007
Owner:
Closed: Nov 2017
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

14.7% - 28.9% regression in memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg at 515951:516016

Project Member Reported by bsheedy@chromium.org, Nov 15 2017

Issue description

There was originally a regression at 515351:515651 (see point 515651 at https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDg94uFzwsM), but this was fixed at 515852:515857.

The same regression seems to have reappeared at 515951:516016.

This regression has only been alerted on the VR perf tests, but the same regression is visible on non-VR tests, e.g. https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=918403aa4fae28e2d4f40c341d4a0828a3fa893bd8bb8fd7a8a366d49c4f9caa. At point 515681 on that graph, you can see the initial regression, which is then fixed at point 515857, then reappears at point 515960.
 
Cc: jgruber@chromium.org
Owner: u...@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)
forwarding to memory sheriffs.
Note: --lazy-handler-deserialization flips are on the range at Point ID: 518562 and Point ID: 515651.

I don't think it's the main cause though, since improvement when lazy handlers were first switched on at Point ID: 515144 was much less than the regression at 515651.

Comment 3 by u...@chromium.org, Nov 23 2017

Mergedinto: 785007
Status: Duplicate (was: Assigned)
This is an accounting issue. Large table that was not accounted in the metric is now accounted.

Sign in to add a comment