Closed Bug 1572674 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

2.29% ts_paint (windows10-64-shippable-qr) regression on push 9d66a096d9e2872c33798b7633448b9144298885 (Sat August 3 2019)

Categories

(Firefox Build System :: Toolchains, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Performance Impact:?)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1572682
mozilla70
Performance Impact ?

People

(Reporter: marauder, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Keywords: perf, regression, talos-regression)

Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push:

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?changeset=9d66a096d9e2872c33798b7633448b9144298885

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

Regressions:

2% ts_paint windows10-64-shippable-qr opt e10s stylo 315.46 -> 322.67

You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=22295

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/TestEngineering/Performance/Talos

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

Blocks: 1562138
Component: Performance → Toolchains
Flags: needinfo?(nfroyd)
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
Product: Testing → Firefox Build System
Regressions: 1570598
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla70
Version: Version 3 → unspecified

It's very unlikely that this is the right regressor. Practically speaking, no change happened. Especially not within Firefox.

Flags: needinfo?(nfroyd)
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)

Thank you for the infos Mike!

Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)
Resolution: --- → INVALID

The regression does look real though. Only misattributed. Why close the bug?

Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)
Resolution: INVALID → ---

I don't see how any of those can be related.

From the graph, I'd say the regression comes from somewhere before that, on autoland. Hard to say when exactly.

Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)

Bebe: Could you help Marian to identify the correct culprit here?

Flags: needinfo?(fstrugariu)
Whiteboard: [qf:tracking70]

(In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #6)

From the graph, I'd say the regression comes from somewhere before that, on autoland. Hard to say when exactly.

You are right about this. mozilla-inbound is just a downstream.

The real regression seems to have appeared on autoland around August 2. Skimming over the talos perf regressions which appeared around that time, I've come across bug 1572682. That bug has 2 different regressions of the same magnitudes; it landed a fix around August 12, which canceled this regression also.

Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago5 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Flags: needinfo?(marian.raiciof)
Flags: needinfo?(fstrugariu)

Was bug 1570598 regressed by bug 1572682 then? Could you update the regressed by field of bug 1570598?

No longer regressions: 1570598
Performance Impact: --- → ?
Whiteboard: [qf:tracking70]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.