Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from your commit 57acaa90d7c6 in bug 1153123. 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=57acaa90d7c6&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#tp5 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 -u none -t tp5o # 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 tp5o 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
this is just a single patch which landed: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=c8053cb8ac32&tochange=57acaa90d7c6 I did some retriggers and the private bytes went up from ~183Mb -> ~189Mb: http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html#tests=[[257,132,25],[257,131,25]]&sel=1432510888776.4778,1432695140408.5251,150000000,228260869.56521738&displayrange=7&datatype=geo Matt, can you comment on this?
Matt, we will be backing this out today due to inactivity in the bug. Please comment ASAP if there is a misunderstanding.
Sorry, been a bit swamped recently. This patch was a really big performance improvement for HTML5 video for affected machines, I think it justifies the small memory hit.
ah, ok- that makes a lot of sense. mind if we just resolve this as wontfix, or is there any desire to investigate a bit more.
WONTFIX sounds fine to me.