New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 844445 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

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

Blocking:
issue 838940



Sign in to add a comment

1.9%-25.1% regression in system_health.memory_desktop at 551969:558761

Project Member Reported by npm@chromium.org, May 18 2018

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
Project Member

Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 18 2018

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=844445

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=f9760d0c9b83e880d5b90393c19847ae8aa8996b0d4a697770aea6cc5ee476be


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

chromium-rel-win10
win-high-dpi
Project Member

Comment 3 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 19 2018

Cc: lukasza@chromium.org jonr...@chromium.org eirage@chromium.org
Owner: eirage@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)
📍 Found significant differences after each of 3 commits.
https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/12c07054240000

Make --site-per-process the default on ToT via fieldtrial_testing_config by lukasza@chromium.org
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/fb1ccf02ee8ca79e1404abfd3a3a7d540b7d2dbd

Disable flaky SystemHealthBenchmarkSmokeTest test by jonross@chromium.org
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/ddf61b968ad5a0225a9efcf3358dbed0a160a341

Add latency_info to original event list by eirage@chromium.org
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4ef6344563acf9961f28f13e36eaebdffd5077e8

Understanding performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions
Blocking: 838940
Components: Internals>Sandbox>SiteIsolation
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
AFAICT the graphs in #c1 and the pinpoint job in #c2 and #c3 are measuring memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:malloc:effective_size_avg.  It is expected that site-per-process uses more memory - on average we expect to increase memory usage (e.g. as measured by Memory.Total.PrivateMemoryFootprint) by around 10%.

Comment 5 by npm@chromium.org, May 22 2018

The regression in these graphs is 25% (in the second one, the big jump points to  issue 835840 ). Any idea why there's such a large gap between the regression here vs the expected 10% from PrivateMemoryFootprint?

Comment 6 by nasko@chromium.org, May 23 2018

The benchmarks usually execute navigations to various pages in the same tab whereas real users on desktop tend to have more than one tab. Once there is more than one tab there is likelihood processes can be reused for iframes common to the various tabs. So what we test with benchmarks for desktop is not what the usage pattern is in reality, which I think is the root cause of the mismatch.

Sign in to add a comment