2.29 - 3.18% Explicit Memory (windows7-32, windows7-32-shippable) regression on push 95e0180f6a40275d54ae910a68c46f61e22b6854 (Wed December 4 2019)
Categories
(Testing :: Performance, defect)
Tracking
(firefox-esr68 unaffected, firefox71 unaffected, firefox72 unaffected, firefox73 wontfix)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr68 | --- | unaffected |
firefox71 | --- | unaffected |
firefox72 | --- | unaffected |
firefox73 | --- | wontfix |
People
(Reporter: alexandrui, Assigned: mythmon)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: perf, perf-alert, 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.
Regressions:
3% Explicit Memory windows7-32-shippable opt 292,050,017.04 -> 301,342,667.60
2% Explicit Memory windows7-32 opt 292,529,978.24 -> 299,596,814.31
2% Explicit Memory windows7-32 opt 293,403,644.06 -> 300,135,796.56
You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=24436
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://wiki.mozilla.org/AWSY/Tests
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
I'm not totally convinced that range is correct, it looks like https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/3a083701018bf872acfc5e391312042d8d246aa4 landed shortly after and could correlate with an increase.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
Yeah, it's actually one commit before. Sorry!
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 3•5 years ago
|
||
Why was this marked invalid? Did the numbers return to normal?
Updated•5 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #3)
Why was this marked invalid? Did the numbers return to normal?
The culprit was another commit.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•