Closed
Bug 1476964
Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
2.23 - 9.1% displaylist_mutate / glterrain / tscrollx / tsvg_static (linux64) regression on push 72725d9980b366c47b3c1cff39c3a737d0d3c8d8 (Wed Jul 18 2018)
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect, P2)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: igoldan, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: perf, regression, talos-regression, Whiteboard: [gfx-noted])
Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?changeset=72725d9980b366c47b3c1cff39c3a737d0d3c8d8 As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 9% tsvg_static linux64 pgo e10s stylo 49.45 -> 53.95 8% tsvg_static linux64 opt e10s stylo 50.74 -> 54.99 8% tscrollx linux64 opt e10s stylo 0.72 -> 0.77 7% tscrollx linux64 pgo e10s stylo 0.70 -> 0.75 4% displaylist_mutate linux64 pgo e10s stylo2,795.41 -> 2,920.95 2% displaylist_mutate linux64 opt e10s stylo3,095.91 -> 3,169.03 2% glterrain linux64 opt e10s stylo 5.46 -> 5.58 2% glterrain linux64 pgo e10s stylo 5.41 -> 5.54 Improvements: 15% rasterflood_svg linux64 pgo e10s stylo 12,449.62 -> 10,595.10 10% rasterflood_svg linux64 opt e10s stylo 11,898.26 -> 10,730.76 5% tp5o_webext responsiveness linux64 pgo e10s stylo1.48 -> 1.41 5% tp5o_webext responsiveness linux64 opt e10s stylo1.70 -> 1.61 4% tp5o linux64 pgo e10s stylo 130.42 -> 124.72 4% tp5o linux64 opt e10s stylo 143.50 -> 138.06 3% tp5o_scroll linux64 pgo e10s stylo 0.59 -> 0.57 3% tp5o_webext linux64 opt e10s stylo 225.82 -> 219.88 2% tp5o_webext linux64 pgo e10s stylo 207.28 -> 202.42 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=14427 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
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Component: General → Graphics: Layers
Product: Testing → Core
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(rhunt)
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
From a discussion with Matt Woodrow on irc, we're not very worried about the displaylist_mutate test. He is concerned about DisplayList/FrameLayerBuilder changes that regress that, and tiling isn't one of those. I'm skeptical about glterrain. It's a small absolute and percentage change, and I haven't seen that on any other platform when enabling tiling. I'd lean towards accepting it for the other gains, if it's real. tscrollx is more significant, but also a small absolute change. I'd lean towards accepting that as well. tsvg_static is significant and I will look into that to see if there are any improvements we can make there.
Flags: needinfo?(rhunt)
Updated•6 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: [gfx-noted]
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Not all of the subtests in tsvg_static are worse. It looks like composite-scale-rotate and composite-scale are the ones that actually regressed. Oddly enough though, I wasn't able to see any difference when running it locally. They actually improve with tiling enabled. I also noticed that those two tests don't actually display anything for me. It seems like the images they're loading aren't actually available. If I copied the images from another svg test using them into the tsvg_static folder, then the test actually displays correctly. I did a try run to see if that made a difference for some reason, and it looks like it improves the test. [1] I'm not sure if that makes up the whole regression, it's about 4 points or 5.5% improvement. I'll put up the patch here. [1] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/compare?originalProject=mozilla-central&originalRevision=4f12d77b4f9b%26&newProject=try&newRevision=3e6dd59723cfdc949fe3723e2c29d04c3481d6a6&framework=1&filter=tsvg
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan Hunt [:rhunt] from comment #2) > Oddly enough though, I wasn't able to see any difference when running it > locally. They actually improve with tiling enabled. > > I also noticed that those two tests don't actually display anything for me. > It seems like the images they're loading aren't actually available. If I > copied the images from another svg test using them into the tsvg_static > folder, then the test actually displays correctly. > > I did a try run to see if that made a difference for some reason, and it > looks like it improves the test. [1] :jwatt this sounds like an issue with the tsvg_static tests. Could you look over this?
Flags: needinfo?(jwatt)
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Bug 1480139 basically backed out bug 1471704. So the regressions/improvements from comment 0 were canceled.
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
It looks like bug 1318530 broke all four of the testing/talos/talos/tests/svg_static/composite-scale-*.svg tests a couple of years ago and nobody noticed. I filed bug 1481402 and put up a patch there.
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
Regarding the perf regression on that test, some sort of regression seems like it would be expected with tiling enabled. Tiling adds more overhead for initial rendering (the svg_static tests check the speed of initial rendering) to help improve the performance of dynamic changes and scrolling. Whether the amount of the regression is expected I can't say. Someone from the GFX team who's been working on the tiling would have to comment on that.
Flags: needinfo?(jwatt)
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jonathan Watt [:jwatt] from comment #6) > Regarding the perf regression on that test, some sort of regression seems > like it would be expected with tiling enabled. Tiling adds more overhead for > initial rendering (the svg_static tests check the speed of initial > rendering) to help improve the performance of dynamic changes and scrolling. > Whether the amount of the regression is expected I can't say. Someone from > the GFX team who's been working on the tiling would have to comment on that. :rhunt can you comment on this?
Flags: needinfo?(rhunt)
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
Ideally we'd have very comparable initial rendering performance for tiling vs. buffer rotation, and that's what I saw locally when testing tsvgx. But regardless, tiling has been backed out on linux because of a high crash rate so this shouldn't be an issue anymore. No one has time to work on re-enabling it and fixing the crashes, so I'd say we wait and see what happens if/when it get's re-enabled.
Flags: needinfo?(rhunt)
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Nothing to fix here, as causing bug got backed out.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•