0.98% compiler_metrics num_static_constructors (android-5-0-x86_64) regression on push fba17efeb06c0e58af3bc11c7bd3b82fbfd89def (Sun November 24 2019)
Categories
(Testing :: Performance, defect)
Tracking
(firefox-esr68 unaffected, firefox71 unaffected, firefox72 fixed, firefox73 fixed)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr68 | --- | unaffected |
firefox71 | --- | unaffected |
firefox72 | --- | fixed |
firefox73 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: alexandrui, Assigned: ng)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: perf-alert, regression)
Attachments
(1 file)
47 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
jcristau
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
We have detected a build metrics regression from push:
As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.
Regressions:
1% compiler_metrics num_static_constructors android-5-0-x86_64 opt 85.17 -> 86.00
You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=24266
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! ***
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
The downstream caused regression higher than 2%. Looks like the autoland recovered from this thanks to Bug 1560664, but beta didn't. Let's wait until beta recovers before closing this.
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
Odds are somewhere between slim and none that we're going to do anything for Beta at this point if the regression is gone on m-c. That said, I'm not entirely sure that this was an expected outcome from bug 1560664 either.
That said, I'm not entirely sure that this was an expected outcome from bug 1560664 either.
Different constructors.
Bug 1570549 added a new constructor at _GLOBAL__sub_I_RsdparsaSdpParser.cpp
, most likely WEBRTC_SDP_NAME
.
Bug 1560664 removed a constructor at _GLOBAL__sub_I_Unified_cpp_accessible_base1.cpp
, I didn't bother checking which.
Since this wasn't exactly fixed, more like masked, I'm reopening.
Comment 5•5 years ago
|
||
Thanks for digging into that, David. Probably worth seeing what we can do about that new webrtc constructor then.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
I can look at this today.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•5 years ago
|
||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•5 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9115796 [details]
Bug 1601561 - Move parser names to static functions.;r?dminor
Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: Regression in static constructors leading to potentially slower startup times.
- Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
- Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: No
- Needs manual test from QE?: No
- If yes, steps to reproduce:
- List of other uplifts needed: None
- Risk to taking this patch: Low
- Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): This code moves some static strings into static member functions. If there is time, it can bake a day on Nightly.
- String changes made/needed:
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9115796 [details]
Bug 1601561 - Move parser names to static functions.;r?dminor
let's get this one in beta for 72.0b9
Comment 13•5 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
Description
•