Closed
Bug 767348
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Memory consumption shows an ascending trend on Nightly/Win 6.1 x64
Categories
(Mozilla QA Graveyard :: Mozmill Tests, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
INCOMPLETE
People
(Reporter: mihaelav, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Whiteboard: [mozmill-endurance])
There are 2 memory spikes on June 14 and 15 and an ascending memory consumption trend afterwards on Win7_64bit Win 6.1 x64 /testTabView_OpenNewTab/test1.js->testOpenNewTab average resident average explicit max resident max explicit 13 Jun: 119 79 136 98 14 Jun: 145 107 175 139 /testTabbedBrowsing_OpenNewTab/test1.js->testOpenNewTab average resident average explicit max resident max explicit 13 Jun: 141 99 166 128 14 Jun: 148 108 195 161 Reports: - http://mozmill-ci.blargon7.com/#/endurance/report/e67171ea696231bb192f56561505d77f (June 13) - http://mozmill-ci.blargon7.com/#/endurance/report/e67171ea696231bb192f5656151043ff (June 14) Win 7x64 overall memory increase: Explicit memory (MB): Maximum: 128 / Average: 75 -> Maximum: 161 / Average: 83 Resident memory (MB): Maximum: 166 / Average: 114 -> Maximum: 195 / Average: 121
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Summary: Memory consumption shows an ascending trend on Nightly/Win 6.0 → Memory consumption shows an ascending trend on Nightly/Win 6.1 x64
Mihaela, whenever you file these bugs, can you also investigate the landings on mozilla-central for this time, providing the hg pushlog? It would be useful to have that information first hand.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (irc: ashughes) from comment #1) > Mihaela, whenever you file these bugs, can you also investigate the landings > on mozilla-central for this time, providing the hg pushlog? It would be > useful to have that information first hand. Sorry I missed that. Pushlog between June 13 and June 14: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?startdate=2012-06-13&enddate=2012-06-14
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Mihaela, for a real pushlog please never use dates. Instead use the changesets of the given builds.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Henrik Skupin (:whimboo) from comment #3) > Mihaela, for a real pushlog please never use dates. Instead use the > changesets of the given builds. http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=964b11fea7f1&tochange=880f30ecdf6b
Purely speculative, but it looks like SQLite was upgraded in this window (Bug 764243). Perhaps they shipped a memory regression?
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
I'm currently still bisecting for bug 764823 due to VM issues. Is there any chance someone can take the investigation of this issue?
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
After the spikes from June 14 and 15, the memory started to maintain high values after June 16. I'm thinking that the regression may be between June 16 and June 19 (there are no results available between those dates). Pushlog (June 16-19): http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=4e3362864fbd&tochange=373e6f9264e6
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
It looks like this has dropped back off a little. Mihaela: Would you be able to investigate this further so we can find out what caused the regression? It would involve running the endurance tests on the affected platform for the nightly builds, and then potentially building Firefox to determine the specific change that caused this regression.
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
As Mihaela is on PTO, could you pick this up Virgil or Ioana? Thanks.
Whiteboard: [mozmill-endurance]
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
I'm going to close this issue as INCOMPLETE. The memory levels dropped considerably after this date, and tinderbox builds are no longer available, so narrowing this down could be a lot of effort for relatively little reward. Now that we have the ability to run tinderbox builds through Mozmill CI we should be much quicker to diagnose such potential memory regressions.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
Updated•5 years ago
|
Product: Mozilla QA → Mozilla QA Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•