New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 828959 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Jul 20
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

1.2%-3.9% regression in media.desktop at 547518:547607

Project Member Reported by tguilbert@chromium.org, Apr 4 2018

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=828959

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=2303309d176e66f9dc7fe40b52133e426d5c9b71e5e64da41749e222512ea899


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati
Cc: pkasting@chromium.org est...@chromium.org
Owner: pkasting@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)
📍 Found a significant difference after 1 commit.
https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/12994c88c40000

Remove InfoBarView::child_container_. by pkasting@chromium.org
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/950402fde2015d3ec1fbaca970159435d0326667

Understanding performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions
Components: Internals>Compositing
If I'm understanding the graphs right, this is claiming my patch causes a 256K memory increase in the "cc:effective_size" metric.  I can't think how that could be since I'm strictly reducing the number of allocated objects and the number of layers, and the remaining objects/layers are not getting larger.

Could someone from the compositing team help me understand how the memory could have gotten worse here?
 Issue 828957  has been merged into this issue.
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
What graphs are accessible from the first link in comment 1 appear to show no continuing problem.  Closing.

Sign in to add a comment