Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
A zero-to-nonzero regression in rendering.mobile/mean_pixels_approximated at 596998:597024 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionSee the link to graphs below.
,
Oct 9
📍 Pinpoint job started. https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/12ee7b54e40000
,
Oct 10
📍 Found a significant difference after 1 commit. https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/12ee7b54e40000 Roll src/third_party/catapult a7a24422d086..56216d7832a4 (1 commits) by chromium-autoroll@skia-public.iam.gserviceaccount.com https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/84f9167ca06c316950a8f0eb12d6d55244769859 mean_pixels_approximated: 0 → 5.861e-05 (+5.861e-05) Understanding performance regressions: http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions Benchmark documentation link: https://bit.ly/rendering-benchmarks
,
Oct 10
According to the CL description, I'm supposed to assign to sullivan@. (The TBR reviewer on the roll.)
,
Oct 10
Issue 893851 has been merged into this issue.
,
Oct 10
Ehsan: The only CL in the roll is: 2018-10-05 chiniforooshan@chromium.org Telemetry: pixel approximated/checkerboarded Can you take a look?
,
Oct 15
,
Oct 16
I think the zero to non-zero issue happens because the old code was rounding off values to 3 decimal digits: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/catapult/+/1262018/8/telemetry/telemetry/web_perf/metrics/rendering_stats.py#b272 The new TBMv2 version reports exact values. Given this, I think this is not a real regression and we can safely ignore (CCing @vmiura to reopen if rounding had a good reason that I ignored). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by 42576172...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
, Oct 9