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

Issue 848255 link

Starred by 3 users

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Jul 27
Cc:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Android
Pri: 2
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

10.9% regression in power.typical_10_mobile at 1527628978:1527641281

Project Member Reported by sullivan@chromium.org, May 31 2018

Issue description

See the link to graphs below.
 
Project Member

Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, May 31 2018

All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=848255

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=3b04a394179538536eb72ebc4c7a33913ff5dcc85145d95666f5aea61823d770


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

health-plan-clankium-low-end-phone

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Error: INFRA_FAILURE

The bisect was able to narrow the range, you can try running with:
  good_revision: 53ce5696671da9931a1cb01d602128ef1a95db74
  bad_revision : 6cf25da95bee042ec69811e16116fdadb0ea600d

If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 11.33% | 0.260303736364 -> 0.289806062121

Revision                                       Result                       N
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9                      0.260304 +- 0.000649818      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562238      0.263273 +- 0.00290753       6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562249      0.288257 +- 0.0044292        6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562259      0.289123 +- 0.00301661       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562301      0.289411 +- 0.00159778       6      bad
android-chrome@471ef73f11                      0.289806 +- 0.00229887       6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8945006103813554784


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
Trying a bisect with a story filter, hopefully will be shorter+more accurate.
Cc: gab@chromium.org
Owner: gab@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)

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

Hi gab@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 : Gabriel Charette
  Commit : 7e7dd55cce56f643d5945f5a2dbd42d475c73e1b
  Date   : Mon May 28 13:39:21 2018
  Subject: [TaskScheduler] Slower latency heartbeat

Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/http___m.huffpost.com_us_entry_6004486
  Change       : 12.72% | 0.236305016667 -> 0.266359483333

Revision                                       Result                      N
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9                      0.236305 +- 0.00445757      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562238      0.237206 +- 0.00160218      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562244      0.236281 +- 0.00571958      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562247      0.238065 +- 0.00425235      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562248      0.264031 +- 0.00233938      6      bad       <--
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562249      0.273173 +- 0.00776998      6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562259      0.267757 +- 0.00832359      6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562301      0.265708 +- 0.00513507      6      bad
android-chrome@471ef73f11                      0.266359 +- 0.00429064      6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=http...m.huffpost.com.us.entry.6004486 power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8944914162275919632


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Comment 8 by gab@chromium.org, Jun 4 2018

I have a very hard time believing that r562248 caused a regression given it was meant to be an improvement over r560052 which had not caused a dent in this metric...

Launched another bisect to see... kicked off an Android build in the mean time to see..

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Perf regression found with culprit

Suspected Commit
  Author : Gabriel Charette
  Commit : 7e7dd55cce56f643d5945f5a2dbd42d475c73e1b
  Date   : Mon May 28 13:39:21 2018
  Subject: [TaskScheduler] Slower latency heartbeat

Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 8.83% | 0.262402960606 -> 0.285575851515

Revision                                       Result                      N
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9                      0.262403 +- 0.00118833      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562238      0.262249 +- 0.00126189      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562244      0.263222 +- 0.00153264      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562247      0.264324 +- 0.00284169      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562248      0.289469 +- 0.00326781      6      bad       <--
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562249      0.28869 +- 0.00356045       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562259      0.288626 +- 0.00441652      6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562301      0.290389 +- 0.00230635      6      bad
android-chrome@471ef73f11                      0.285576 +- 0.00512216      6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8944617910281270576


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Comment 10 by gab@chromium.org, Jun 7 2018

Cc: benhenry@chromium.org
@benhenry : who's the right contact for "health-plan-clankium-low-end-phone" from the System Health metrics? I can't figure out why this would have regressed @ r562248 but not @ r560052 (the latest CL is merely making the initial CL less aggressive...).

Is this using Clang as a compiler? A static initializer for |g_heartbeat_for_testing| is the only thing I can see... but even then... not 10% difference...
Cc: charliea@chromium.org mariakho...@chromium.org
Adding Charlie and Maria, as I don't know anyone clank specific.
Cc: -charliea@chromium.org
Swapping me out for Juan (who owns this benchmark)
Cc: nyquist@chromium.org
It should be using clang. We only support clang on Android these days.

My only guess as to why this caused a regression, but the previous CL seems to coincide with an improvement alert is because something else landed at the same time as the regression to make the "net" improvement, see this graph: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=3b04a394179538536eb72ebc4c7a33913ff5dcc85145d95666f5aea61823d770


Cc: thildebr@chromium.org
+thildebr FYI
Project Member

Comment 17 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com, Jun 19 2018


=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Perf regression found with culprit

Suspected Commit
  Author : Gabriel Charette
  Commit : 7e7dd55cce56f643d5945f5a2dbd42d475c73e1b
  Date   : Mon May 28 13:39:21 2018
  Subject: [TaskScheduler] Slower latency heartbeat

Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 10.34% | 0.261519163636 -> 0.288566225758

Revision                                       Result                       N
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9                      0.261519 +- 0.000629634      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562238      0.261649 +- 0.00108604       6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562244      0.2632 +- 0.000886633        6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562247      0.262342 +- 0.00123737       6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562248      0.288006 +- 0.00475372       6      bad       <--
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562249      0.289111 +- 0.00262294       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562259      0.289593 +- 0.00526017       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562301      0.292543 +- 0.00314437       6      bad
android-chrome@471ef73f11                      0.288566 +- 0.00864792       6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8943326880668236720


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
The only thing I can see is the call to RandUtil which although it's only invoked 59 minutes after startup may change the loader's logic (not sure why that'd affect much of anything beyond startup performance though... and specifically not power..)

There's a matching improvement on the graph in
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/9de442989747113525ec0b18fd15b93dd9677a5a%5E..e580db8610d8033ada999e5717b9dad7bef78799?pretty=fuller&n=1000
I launched a bisect to see what that pinpoints...

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Please try rerunning the bisect.


If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 4.99% | 0.276934519697 -> 0.263118548485

Revision                                       Result                      N
android-chrome@1d65273090                      0.276935 +- 0.003409        6      good
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565290      0.264611 +- 0.00123219      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565293      0.262888 +- 0.001518        6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565299      0.264028 +- 0.00164243      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565312      0.263796 +- 0.00105606      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565338      0.263999 +- 0.00177075      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565390      0.264021 +- 0.0021557       6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565493      0.263182 +- 0.00138846      6      bad
android-chrome@ffc18f550f                      0.263119 +- 0.00146991      6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8941266239912830128


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

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

Hi gab@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 : Gabriel Charette
  Commit : 7e7dd55cce56f643d5945f5a2dbd42d475c73e1b
  Date   : Mon May 28 13:39:21 2018
  Subject: [TaskScheduler] Slower latency heartbeat

Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 10.89% | 0.261007684848 -> 0.289436162121

Revision                                       Result                       N
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9                      0.261008 +- 0.000857321      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562238      0.260563 +- 0.000705119      6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562244      0.261632 +- 0.00109015       6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562247      0.261036 +- 0.00095427       6      good
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562248      0.288839 +- 0.00586059       6      bad       <--
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562249      0.286398 +- 0.00250888       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562259      0.289301 +- 0.00290086       6      bad
android-chrome@4ab819e0f9,chromium@562301      0.289559 +- 0.00362998       6      bad
android-chrome@471ef73f11                      0.289436 +- 0.00257839       6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8941174237205828224


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Please try rerunning the bisect.


If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 5.98% | 0.279413145455 -> 0.262696021212

Revision                                       Result                       N
android-chrome@1d65273090                      0.279413 +- 0.00544378       6      good
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565338      0.263055 +- 0.000622299      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565390      0.26327 +- 0.00111397        6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565493      0.262958 +- 0.00115782       6      bad
android-chrome@ffc18f550f                      0.262696 +- 0.000592699      6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8941174227845988768


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
Project Member

Comment 25 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jul 18

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/548db20100afee184fcda974d60a06345b05c597

commit 548db20100afee184fcda974d60a06345b05c597
Author: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Date: Wed Jul 18 19:16:43 2018

[TaskScheduler] Temporarily disable heartbeat latency metrics on Android to bisect power regression

R=fdoray@chromium.org

Bug:  848255 
Change-Id: Ic47d338fb15e0bf3579ecd9d1acca67099c6d570
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1137849
Reviewed-by: Robert Liao <robliao@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#576158}
[modify] https://crrev.com/548db20100afee184fcda974d60a06345b05c597/base/task_scheduler/service_thread.cc
[modify] https://crrev.com/548db20100afee184fcda974d60a06345b05c597/base/task_scheduler/service_thread_unittest.cc


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

Hi gab@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 : Gabriel Charette
  Commit : 903fd04e262f060fecf5ed75549076681e63049d
  Date   : Thu Jun 07 16:24:08 2018
  Subject: [TaskScheduler] Consider the idle thread on top of the idle stack as active.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: clankium-low-end-phone-perf-bisect
  Benchmark    : power.typical_10_mobile
  Metric       : application_energy_consumption_mwh/application_energy_consumption_mwh
  Change       : 7.28% | 0.281980236364 -> 0.261438289394

Revision                                       Result                       N
android-chrome@1d65273090                      0.28198 +- 0.00425623        6      good
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565287      0.282939 +- 0.00280111       6      good
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565288      0.262591 +- 0.000655372      6      bad       <--
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565290      0.262068 +- 0.000964619      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565293      0.264195 +- 0.00195476       6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565299      0.263917 +- 0.00184747       6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565312      0.262695 +- 0.000409379      6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565338      0.262512 +- 0.00120573       6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565390      0.262156 +- 0.0010626        6      bad
android-chrome@1d65273090,chromium@565493      0.261616 +- 0.00158751       6      bad
android-chrome@ffc18f550f                      0.261438 +- 0.00109021       6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chrome --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests power.typical_10_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8940568883479032272


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection
Project Member

Comment 28 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jul 24

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/d21e49e7ff9ffc7cce7c48a1191d5f33c6904f7c

commit d21e49e7ff9ffc7cce7c48a1191d5f33c6904f7c
Author: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Date: Tue Jul 24 16:51:20 2018

Revert "[TaskScheduler] Temporarily disable heartbeat latency metrics on Android to bisect power regression"

This reverts commit 548db20100afee184fcda974d60a06345b05c597.

Reason for revert: regression had recovered on its own and this CL doesn't seem to help further : https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=3b04a394179538536eb72ebc4c7a33913ff5dcc85145d95666f5aea61823d770

Original change's description:
> [TaskScheduler] Temporarily disable heartbeat latency metrics on Android to bisect power regression
> 
> R=​fdoray@chromium.org
> 
> Bug:  848255 
> Change-Id: Ic47d338fb15e0bf3579ecd9d1acca67099c6d570
> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1137849
> Reviewed-by: Robert Liao <robliao@chromium.org>
> Commit-Queue: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#576158}

TBR=gab@chromium.org,robliao@chromium.org

# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed > 1 day ago.

Bug:  848255 
Change-Id: Ie402a1ec2381f296863522bcf9ba7c387648df6d
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1148481
Reviewed-by: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#577581}
[modify] https://crrev.com/d21e49e7ff9ffc7cce7c48a1191d5f33c6904f7c/base/task_scheduler/service_thread.cc
[modify] https://crrev.com/d21e49e7ff9ffc7cce7c48a1191d5f33c6904f7c/base/task_scheduler/service_thread_unittest.cc

Cc: benmason@chromium.org
If the regression has recovered, can we close this out?
Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
Yep, closing
Project Member

Comment 32 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jul 26

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/9442f946aef55baec873dce19fdbc7f1fbd255ea

commit 9442f946aef55baec873dce19fdbc7f1fbd255ea
Author: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Date: Thu Jul 26 20:26:30 2018

[TaskScheduler] Require constant initialization for g_heartbeat_for_testing

Somehow r562248 caused a regression whereby it should have been strictly
more performant, the only difference is the potential static
initializer (which if incorrectly initialized could result in it being
non-zero? and somehow cause the timer to be fast?).
Let's try to suppress it.

R=fdoray@chromium.org

Bug:  848255 
Change-Id: I21111ddd4c069b9171badc58fc4a1914bb068641
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1090794
Reviewed-by: François Doray <fdoray@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#578420}
[modify] https://crrev.com/9442f946aef55baec873dce19fdbc7f1fbd255ea/base/task_scheduler/service_thread.cc

Labels: -ReleaseBlock-Beta ReleaseBlock-Stable
Status: Started (was: WontFix)
Sorry no, I'm not sure it has recovered. While it did recover what it lost through r565288, that CL is expected to have improved power. However, it wasn't directly intended to heal r562248 so I'm not yet convinced that it has recovered (it's just an improvement after a regression as far as I'm concerned at the moment).

r578420 is trying to decipher this further but the bots haven't caught up to it yet.

Doesn't need to block Beta though.
Status: WontFix (was: Started)
Ok r578420 didn't budge the graph, don't think there's anything left to assess here. Still confused though...
Project Member

Comment 35 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jul 27

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/510d3437426dd68f3d50d5be7c2b34f4f125e5c9

commit 510d3437426dd68f3d50d5be7c2b34f4f125e5c9
Author: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Date: Fri Jul 27 20:05:36 2018

Revert "[TaskScheduler] Require constant initialization for g_heartbeat_for_testing"

This reverts commit 9442f946aef55baec873dce19fdbc7f1fbd255ea.

Reason for revert: didn't budge the graph (https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=d99ad2294f639cf4e0d0bbfa0e9aee1cac5a0352ef9f35d266f375f52466a608&start_rev=1526716391&end_rev=1532706078)

Original change's description:
> [TaskScheduler] Require constant initialization for g_heartbeat_for_testing
> 
> Somehow r562248 caused a regression whereby it should have been strictly
> more performant, the only difference is the potential static
> initializer (which if incorrectly initialized could result in it being
> non-zero? and somehow cause the timer to be fast?).
> Let's try to suppress it.
> 
> R=​fdoray@chromium.org
> 
> Bug:  848255 
> Change-Id: I21111ddd4c069b9171badc58fc4a1914bb068641
> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1090794
> Reviewed-by: François Doray <fdoray@chromium.org>
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#578420}

TBR=gab@chromium.org,fdoray@chromium.org

Change-Id: I457751dc2d9d410e049685e22cf3f79cf39d3c11
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
No-Try: true
Bug:  848255 
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1153230
Reviewed-by: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Gabriel Charette <gab@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#578762}
[modify] https://crrev.com/510d3437426dd68f3d50d5be7c2b34f4f125e5c9/base/task_scheduler/service_thread.cc

Sign in to add a comment