Closed Bug 1162081 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago

2.2-15% WinXP/MacOS* tpaint/sessionrestore/sessionrestore_no_auto_restore/ts_paint regression on Mozilla-Inbound (v.40) on May 05, 2015 from push f58f60cd772c

Categories

(Testing :: Talos, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: vaibhav1994, Unassigned)

References

Details

Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from your commit f58f60cd772c in bug 1149555.  We need you to address this regression.

This is a list of all known regressions and improvements related to your bug:
http://alertmanager.allizom.org:8080/alerts.html?rev=f58f60cd772c&showAll=1

On the page above you can see Talos alert for each affected platform as well as a link to a graph showing the history of scores for this test. There is also a link to a treeherder page showing the Talos jobs in a pushlog format.

To learn more about the regressing test, please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Tests#tpaint

Reproducing and debugging the regression:
If you would like to re-run this Talos test on a potential fix, use try with the following syntax:
try: -b o -p win32,macosx64 -u none -t other  # add "mozharness: --spsProfile" to generate profile data

To run the test locally and do a more in-depth investigation, first set up a local Talos environment:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Running#Running_locally_-_Source_Code

Then run the following command from the directory where you set up Talos:
talos --develop -e <path>/firefox -a tpaint

Making a decision:
As the patch author we need your feedback to help us handle this regression.
*** Please let us know your plans by Monday, or the offending patch will be backed out! ***

Our wiki page oulines the common responses and expectations:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/RegressionBugsHandling
:smaug, could you look into what is causing this regression?
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Any links to the testing frameworks? The relevant bug changed when we fire resize event, so that
could cause quite some timing changes - which wouldn't be real performance regressions.
Flags: needinfo?(vaibhavmagarwal)
The tresize test runs using an addon: http://hg.mozilla.org/build/talos/file/c1da803b295e/talos/startup_test/tresize/addon

tresize was modified last to fit e10s at bug 1102479, where you could find some info on what it does and tests.

You can run it locally by visiting http://hg.mozilla.org/build/talos/raw-file/c1da803b295e/talos/generate-tresize-xpi.html

and once installed and restarted, visit chrome://tresize/content/tresize-test.html

Once the test has finished (less 10 seconds suring which it resizes the browser window), the result would show in an alert.

Of course, you can also run it with in talos.
Flags: needinfo?(vaibhavmagarwal)
:smaug, this has been pending for a while!  Have you had any luck looking into this?  These regressions are showing up with pocket as well, so there will be some confusing overlap when pulling the latest source to investigate.

Also today is an uplift to aurora- so all fixes should be considered for firefox 40 (aurora) as well as trunk.
I see that the original was backed out in bug 1149555.  That is cool.  Is there anything we can do to help figure out a better fix?
"better fix". bug 1149555 made resize event work per HTML spec. So if we don't want that - and I'm trying to figure out if that is the case - we need to change the spec.
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
I wouldn't believe that fixing a perf regression should cause us to change a spec.  While that isn't unreasonable if the spec is not written well, it does seem a big far stretching.  Thanks for commenting, my main goal is to figure out the current state of the non resolved regressions and help where I can.
Can we mark this bug as "Resolved Fixed", since the original changeset is backed out and is no longer a regression?
(In reply to Vaibhav (:vaibhav1994) from comment #9)
> Can we mark this bug as "Resolved Fixed", since the original changeset is
> backed out and is no longer a regression?

I think so, because once it lands again it might have different regressions.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.