Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
14.1%-19.3% regression in system_health.memory_mobile at 527269:527396 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Jan 9 2018
Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8957844440708466064
,
Jan 9 2018
=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author japhet@chromium.org === Hi japhet@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 : Nate Chapin Commit : 3a87be14e46d7d1946da2277ba03751e96fe0e04 Date : Fri Jan 05 20:42:12 2018 Subject: Restore CSSFontFaceSrcValue::FontResourceHelper Bisect Details Configuration: android_webview_arm64_aosp_perf_bisect Benchmark : system_health.memory_mobile Metric : memory:webview:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:skia:effective_size_avg/browse_news/browse_news_cnn Change : 16.51% | 835513.333333 -> 973420.0 Revision Result N chromium@527349 835513 +- 24963.9 6 good chromium@527361 823317 +- 36361.5 6 good chromium@527367 837809 +- 64113.3 6 good chromium@527370 823751 +- 37436.0 6 good chromium@527371 828949 +- 6745.58 6 good chromium@527372 960168 +- 41167.0 6 bad <-- chromium@527373 992464 +- 79508.1 6 bad chromium@527396 973420 +- 151682 6 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-webview --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.cnn 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/8957844440708466064 For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
,
Jan 23 2018
https://crrev.com/3a87be14e46d7d1946da2277ba03751e96fe0e04 was a partial-revert due to the CL's perf regressions. The perf regressions that this CL fixed were much, much worse than the improvements on these couple of metrics. See 796654 and 797060. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Jan 9 2018