6.2% ts_paint_webext (Windows) regression on Thu March 7 2024
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: WebRender, defect)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr115 | --- | unaffected |
firefox123 | --- | unaffected |
firefox124 | --- | unaffected |
firefox125 | --- | disabled |
firefox126 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: aglavic, Assigned: bradwerth)
References
(Regression)
Details
(4 keywords)
Attachments
(1 obsolete file)
Perfherder has detected a talos performance regression from push db166f0115c4eb3a6a37cc2e1218293acc7f074b. 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) |
---|---|---|---|---|
7% | ts_paint | windows10-64-shippable-qr | e10s fission stylo webrender | 430.67 -> 461.17 |
7% | ts_paint_webext | windows10-64-shippable-qr | e10s fission stylo webrender | 433.00 -> 461.67 |
6% | ts_paint_webext | windows10-64-shippable-qr | e10s fission stylo webrender | 433.79 -> 460.67 |
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.
You can run these tests on try with ./mach try perf --alert 41787
For more information on performance sheriffing please see our FAQ.
Comment 1•1 year ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1882358
Assignee | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•1 year ago
|
||
My theory is that this is happening because ts_paint is measuring the time it takes to complete the first paint submission calls, rather than measuring the time before the first paint completes. In other words, if the first paint is async, ts_paint as currently calculated will be lower. If this is correct analysis, it'll be easy to undo the ts_paint regression by no longer forcing the first flush to be sync (as was done in D202869). But really, we need to fix what ts_paint is measuring, which I will open another Bug to accomplish, presuming this fix works.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•1 year ago
|
||
This recovers most of the performance degradation of ts_paint, which
measures time to first MozAfterPaint event received. It's not critical
that the first flush be sync, so let's keep things flowing in the way
that ts_paint prefers.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 4•1 year ago
|
||
Looks like this is what ts_paint runs
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/talos/talos/startup_test/tspaint_test.html
It gets the firstPaint value from the startupinfo object via getStartupInfo.
That object should contain two fields
firstPaint and firstPaint2. These are recorded
and
respectively. So firstPaint2 measures the time of the end of the first composite. I think that is what you are asking for here.
I created firstPaint2 years ago in bug 1556568 presumably due to a similar issue. After that I was hoping that we would have observed firstPaint2 long enough to validate that it was working as expected and then switch over our relevant perf metrics to it. And bug 1654398 got filed to switch ts_paint to the new metric, but I guess it never got picked it up.
Comment 6•1 year ago
|
||
bugherder |
Backed out for causing multiple regressions.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 8•1 year ago
•
|
||
Backed out from Beta for 125.0b2 also.
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/1f815868a897599dc211b55fffec34305bd5c020
Assignee | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•1 year ago
|
||
Resolved by backout.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Description
•