Closed Bug 1497785 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

4.54% Heap Unclassified (windows10-64) regression on push 72e7ef77480d0845ceabb5d3747a5523db6bda9d (Wed Oct 10 2018)


(Core :: DOM: Content Processes, defect)

58 Branch
Not set





(Reporter: igoldan, Unassigned)



(Keywords: perf, regression)

We have detected an awsy regression from push:

As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.


  5%  Heap Unclassified windows10-64 pgo stylo     37,429,954.61 -> 39,127,824.39


 12%  Images windows10-64 pgo stylo     7,936,538.05 -> 7,021,840.48

You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at:

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 jobs in a pushlog format.

To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see:
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Component: General → DOM: Content Processes
Product: Testing → Core
This also happens for Linux 64bit and Windows 7.
This is an expected side-effect of increasing the process count.
Closed: 6 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
This also brought tps regressions on some of the desktop platforms:

== Change summary for alert #16593 (as of Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:07:51 GMT) ==


 19%  tps windows7-32 pgo e10s stylo     10.71 -> 12.77
 11%  tps windows7-32 opt e10s stylo     12.13 -> 13.49
  7%  tps linux64 opt e10s stylo         10.80 -> 11.61
  7%  tps linux64-qr opt e10s stylo      9.18 -> 9.80


 13%  tps windows10-64 pgo e10s stylo        11.72 -> 10.17
  9%  tps windows10-64 opt e10s stylo        12.44 -> 11.30
  7%  tps windows10-64-qr opt e10s stylo     9.58 -> 8.88

For up to date results, see:
:erahm were these also expected?
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
mconley, bumping to 8 content processes seems to have both regressed *and* improved the talos tps test. Is this something we want to look into further?
Flags: needinfo?(erahm) → needinfo?(mconley)
Yeah, I think I'd like to understand this. I've filed bug 1501825 for that.
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.