On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Tony Chang <[email protected]> wrote:
> For reasons unknown to me, this line jumped back up. It seems it's because > of Matt's revert: > http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=32524 > > This is a startup test, so it basically times how long it takes for > LaunchApp to return. Maybe the methodology here is a bit off? > Yeah, I think New Tab tests are more important, since they measure what the user sees, not when internal APIs are called. In the case of the above change by Matt, New Tab Cold hasn't changed so I think it's fine to ignore the rise. http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/linux-release-hardy/new-tab-ui-cold/report.html?history=150 > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Chase Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > >> t_ref shouldn't move, though, since it was isolated from your change. >> >> Tony, I don't think there's a problem with the graph pulling the wrong >> numbers. I see the same difference between extension_toolstrip50 and >> extension_toolstrip1 when comparing the linux release hardy's graph values, >> the .dat file the graph code uses, and the output of the startup test >> itself. I thought maybe extension_toolstrip50 could be using the reference >> build on accident, so I verified startup_test.cc runs extension_toolstrip50 >> on the current build instead of the reference build (it does). >> >> Things look fine on Windows (the perf graph is what I'd expect, and >> running the test locally results in toolstrip50 results greater than >> toolstrip1). These tests don't run on Mac. We should run the tests on >> Linux to verify things look sane locally, too. No explanation for the odd >> results yet. >> >> Chase >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I don't have an answer to that. The t_ref line didn't move either. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Tony Chang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Why didn't the black line on the linux warm perf bot change? It says >>>> that that is the extension_toolstrip50 test, which I would expect to run >>>> slower than the extension_toolstrip1 test. Maybe the graph is pulling the >>>> wrong numbers? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/linux-release-hardy/startup/report.html?history=150&graph=warm >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, John Abd-El-Malek >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yep, that was my plan. I'm planning on doing the same thing for the >>>>> rest of the child processes, and if I see any significant changes on the >>>>> perf test (which I don't expect), I'll update the reference builds again. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Brett Wilson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > This sounds like goodness. Updating the reference builds is usually >>>>>> a good >>>>>> > thing to do in cases like this so that new changes are easier to >>>>>> notice. >>>>>> >>>>>> We'll be doing this soon anyway. Al has a patch for the IPC message >>>>>> types running out which will break the reference build. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brett >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] >>>>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] >>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >>> >> >> > -- > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
