Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
1.7%-3.3% regression in rendering.mobile at 588374:588429 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionThe ref build does *not* move in these, so it may not be the frequency change in r588413.
,
Sep 5
📍 Pinpoint job started. https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/155736c9640000
,
Sep 6
📍 Found a significant difference after 1 commit. https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/155736c9640000 Roll src/third_party/catapult 713e916190aa..88dc49aaadb0 (3 commits) by catapult-chromium-autoroll@skia-buildbots.google.com.iam.gserviceaccount.com https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/fcfe9a6f17f02771890c03d666dcebf560eca909 18.16 → 18.71 (+0.5476) Assigning to sheriff sullivan@chromium.org because "Roll src/third_party/catapult 713e916190aa..88dc49aaadb0 (3 commits)" is a roll. Understanding performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Benchmark documentation link: https://bit.ly/rendering-benchmarks
,
Sep 6
+pasko, FYI. This is a little weird, but doesn't look like there's a good way to follow up. Most of the "regressions" from changing CPU/GPU frequency on N5X show the ref build changing too. In these graphs, the ref build is stable, but pinpoint blames the change on CPU/GPU frequency. WontFix-ing because we knew the frequency change would cause changes. But feel free to re=open if this merits further investigation.
,
Sep 6
I might be doing something wrong, but I am not seeing the ref moving in these graphs. Also the new noise levels are worse than I expected, will investigate more. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Sep 5