196.11 - 223% tp5n main_normal_fileio (windows10-64-shippable, windows10-64-shippable-qr) regression on push bd02e39a0b42472b4ebb3a84d220d0aecce1074c (Thu February 13 2020)
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, defect)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox75 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: Bebe, Unassigned)
References
(Regression)
Details
(4 keywords)
Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push:
As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.
Regressions:
223% tp5n main_normal_fileio windows10-64-shippable opt e10s stylo 909,433.08 -> 2,937,438.17
196% tp5n main_normal_fileio windows10-64-shippable-qr opt e10s stylo 936,182.42 -> 2,772,094.33
153% tp5n main_normal_fileio windows10-64-shippable-qr opt e10s stylo 1,109,984.50 -> 2,803,193.67
You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=24961
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
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 3•5 years ago
|
||
Doug is correct, or at least has the most plausible hypothesis that I can see. The graph:
shows benchmark levels back to normal after a couple of days, and bug 1615045 is contained in the first push:
that has a data point at "normal" levels.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
Description
•