1344468 - 3.54 - 3.85% damp (windows8-64) regression on push fd85a5aafa9fdc2fbe012408e996f573308fb697 (Thu Feb 23 2017)

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1335419

(DevTools :: Inspector, defect, P2)

Description

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push fd85a5aafa9fdc2fbe012408e996f573308fb697. As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.

Regressions:

  4%  damp summary windows8-64 opt e10s     288.82 -> 299.95
  4%  damp summary windows8-64 pgo          284.13 -> 294.19


You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=5284

On the page above you can see an 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(s), please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Tests

For information on reproducing and debugging the regression, either on try or locally, see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Running

*** Please let us know your plans within 3 business days, or the offending patch(es) will be backed out! ***

Our wiki page outlines the common responses and expectations: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/RegressionBugsHandling

Comment 1

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

Apologies for the delay in sheriffing, as this is 1+ week old, I would like to say the 3 day backout policy doesn't apply.

here is a compare view showing the subtests that caused problems:
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/comparesubtest?originalProject=mozilla-inbound&originalRevision=fcef571d22c3ad151a62cb1cad6d751f79a72446&newProject=mozilla-inbound&newRevision=fd85a5aafa9fdc2fbe012408e996f573308fb697&originalSignature=f1b8974c1b07db58b52be38dbc65a8d6f44e8d53&newSignature=f1b8974c1b07db58b52be38dbc65a8d6f44e8d53&framework=1

as a note, a day later some other change landed (not able to figure it out) which reduced this to a very small regression, keep that in mind when assigning importance here.

:gl, can you take a look at this and help determine if there is anything that we can do to reduce this, or if we should accept this?

Comment 2

[Julian Descottes [:jdescottes]]

Might be mitigated by Bug 1335419.

Performance impact on inspector open/close, we should try to fix and uplift this if possible.
The plan is to first finish and land Bug 1335419.

Comment 3

[Nathan Froyd [:froydnj]]

[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: performance regression; comment 2 indicates that we'd like to fix and uplift if that's possible.

Comment 4

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

Tracking 53/54+ for this performance regression.

Comment 5

[Gerry Chang [:gchang]]

Hi :jdescottes,
Do you have any updates for this issue?

Comment 6

[Julian Descottes [:jdescottes]]

Now that Bug 1335419 has landed, opening the inspector should no longer initialize the panels that created the performance regression.

I think we could close this bug as duplicate of Bug 1335419 ?
(which probably means it will be wontfix for 54, and will ride the trains with 55)

Comment 7

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

I am fine marking this as fixed also and not worrying about uplifting to 54.

Comment 9

[Gerry Chang [:gchang]]

Mark 55 fixed and 54 won't fix as bug 1335419 was fixed in 55.