Closed Bug 1515271 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

21.04% build times (windows2012-aarch64) regression on push 9f01fb6fbbfd2c05cdfc7269e7575f1e7e2e769e (Fri Dec 14 2018)

Categories

(Core :: Security: Process Sandboxing, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Security: Process Sandboxing
Platform:
ARM64
Windows
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED WORKSFORME

People

(Reporter: igoldan, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Keywords: regression)

We have detected a build metrics regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=f5ff59b1aaebeea896309239751485c05a11c1c2&tochange=9f01fb6fbbfd2c05cdfc7269e7575f1e7e2e769e As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 21% build times windows2012-aarch64 debug msvc-aarch64 taskcluster-c5.4xlarge 1,921.75 -> 2,326.16 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=18220 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: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/Automated_Performance_Testing_and_Sheriffing/Build_Metrics *** Please let us know your plans within 3 business days, or the offending patch(es) will be backed out! ***
Component: General → Security: Process Sandboxing
Product: Testing → Core
ni?ing :froydng as :bobowen is on PTO until January 3rd.
Flags: needinfo?(nfroyd)
At first I couldn't understand how this could cause a regression on Windows...and then I noticed that this is for *aarch64* builds. OK, that's fine: we enabled the sandbox and now we're building a bunch of extra code. No problems here.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(nfroyd)
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
> we enabled the sandbox and now we're building a bunch of extra code. To emphasize: "extra" == "necessary" here. The sandbox had been temporarily disabled to get around build problems, but we need to have it back for parity with Intel builds.
400 seconds for the sandbox?!?
(In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #4) > 400 seconds for the sandbox?!? Should we reopen this?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.