1863761 - 13.86 - 8.17% perf_reftest_singletons bloom-basic-2.html / perf_reftest_singletons bloom-basic-2.html + 1 more (OSX) regression on Tue October 31 2023

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Core :: DOM: Navigation, defect)

Description

[Andrej (:aglavic)]

Perfherder has detected a talos performance regression from push 794155e516b386e428466e87fa6b9b4fed1e3807. As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.

Regressions:

Ratio	Test	Platform	Options	Absolute values (old vs new)
14%	perf_reftest_singletons bloom-basic-2.html	macosx1015-64-shippable-qr	e10s fission stylo webrender	52.16 -> 59.39
13%	perf_reftest_singletons bloom-basic.html	macosx1015-64-shippable-qr	e10s fission stylo webrender	52.52 -> 59.52
8%	perf_reftest_singletons bloom-basic-2.html	macosx1015-64-shippable-qr	e10s fission stylo webrender	53.89 -> 58.29

Details of the alert can be found in the alert summary, including links to graphs and comparisons for each of the affected tests. Please follow our guide to handling regression bugs and let us know your plans within 3 business days, or the patch(es) may be backed out in accordance with our regression policy.

If you need the profiling jobs you can trigger them yourself from treeherder job view or ask a sheriff to do that for you.

For more information on performance sheriffing please see our FAQ.

Comment 1

[:Gijs (he/him)]

Emilio, can you help as your name is listed for this talos test? I don't understand how principal handling for about: pages would have made a meaningful difference to any stylo/layout performance tests.

Comment 2

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1855992

Comment 3

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

Yeah, not sure either, seems like a false positive. Looking at the graphs it seems to have recovered?

Comment 4

[:Gijs (he/him)]

Actually, looking at this push again, this got tied to bug 1855992 but the push was for both that bug and bug 747301, and bug 1855992 was backed out shortly after the regression (Oct 31, bug 1855992 comment 4).

So this was, theoretically, caused by the about:plugins removal.

That makes even less sense.

The push immediately preceding it was bug 1861716 which at least tangentially seems more likely to be related - but the retriggers on that were "good" and the retriggers on the about:plugins-removal push were "bad".

Given that the numbers have recovered per comment #3, I'm tempted to close this WFM. :aglavic, does that sound OK?

Comment 5

[Andrej (:aglavic)]

That's okay with me