Closed Bug 1505290 Opened 3 years ago Closed 1 year ago
.73% tsvgx (linux64-qr) regression on push 7a308f25794fefdd541d3c913fb807c6ee495615 (Tue Nov 6 2018)
Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/pushloghtml?changeset=7a308f25794fefdd541d3c913fb807c6ee495615 As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 42% tsvgx linux64-qr opt e10s stylo 245.27 -> 347.63 Improvements: 23% tsvgr_opacity linux64-qr opt e10s stylo 155.84 -> 120.12 7% tsvg_static linux64-qr opt e10s stylo 68.62 -> 64.14 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=17389 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/Performance_sheriffing/Talos/Tests For information on reproducing and debugging the regression, either on try or locally, see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance_sheriffing/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/Performance_sheriffing/Talos/RegressionBugsHandling
Component: General → Graphics: WebRender
Product: Testing → Core
I understand this Linux QR is not a priority. Still, if you file any bugs against this issue, do link them here also.
We also detected these new Raptor regressions: == Change summary for alert #17398 (as of Tue, 06 Nov 2018 19:46:18 GMT) == Regressions: 9% raptor-motionmark-animometer-firefox linux64-qr opt 42.55 -> 38.87 2% raptor-motionmark-animometer-firefox windows10-64-qr opt 39.84 -> 38.87 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=17398
A bit surprising that we regressed tsvgx by this much, especially since it improved on Windows. I'm still looking into tsvgx regressions, so hopefully this gets better again.
P4 until we understand the cause
Priority: -- → P3
(In reply to Maire Reavy [:mreavy] Plz needinfo from comment #4) > P4 until we understand the cause The comment was meant for another bug
(In reply to Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow) from comment #3) > A bit surprising that we regressed tsvgx by this much, especially since it > improved on Windows. > > I'm still looking into tsvgx regressions, so hopefully this gets better > again. If you filed a separate bug for this investigation, please link it against this one.
Apologies, added the dependent bug now.
Depends on: 1416652
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 1 year ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.