Re: CloseFile() latency on Windows

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-09-28 5:41 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >> When writing thousands of files in rapid succession, this 1+ms pause >> (assuming synchronous I/O) piles up. Assuming a 1ms pause, writing 100,000 >> files spends 100s in CloseFile()! The proc

Re: CloseFile() latency on Windows

On 2015-09-28 5:41 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: When writing thousands of files in rapid succession, this 1+ms pause (assuming synchronous I/O) piles up. Assuming a 1ms pause, writing 100,000 files spends 100s in CloseFile()! The process profile also shows the bulk of the time in CloseFile(), so this

Re: Changes to automated bug comments for intermittent failures

This is great. Thanks for this! Wes On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ed Morley wrote: > Currently whenever a sheriff or developer classifies an intermittent > failure on Treeherder with a bug number, a comment is left on that bug for > every occurrence. > > We're going to be turning these comme

Changes to automated bug comments for intermittent failures

Currently whenever a sheriff or developer classifies an intermittent failure on Treeherder with a bug number, a comment is left on that bug for every occurrence. We're going to be turning these comments off, and replacing them with periodic summaries of recent failures, in order to: * Improve the

Re: CloseFile() latency on Windows

We recently dealt with something similar in Gecko. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1152046 - Kyle On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > As part of profiling a Python process on Windows using Process Monitor.exe, > I noticed that closing file handles using Clos

CloseFile() latency on Windows

As part of profiling a Python process on Windows using Process Monitor.exe, I noticed that closing file handles using CloseFile() takes 1+ms. Contrast this with other I/O related system calls like WriteFile() that tend to take ~1us. (I /think/ it only takes a longer time if the file has been writte

Re: Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

On 2015-09-28 1:54 PM, joel maher wrote: For the opened bugs it would be nice to know to focus on ones that have >1 instance, that means that there is a much higher chance to reproduce the bug rather than letting hundreds (or even 1000+) of test runs go by without seeing another instance of the

Re: Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

For the opened bugs it would be nice to know to focus on ones that have >1 instance, that means that there is a much higher chance to reproduce the bug rather than letting hundreds (or even 1000+) of test runs go by without seeing another instance of the failure. -Joel On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:

Re: Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

Included auto-closed bugs in that count sounds misleading at best. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Wes Kocher wrote: > What if the query was changed to only count bugs resolved 'fixed'? I > believe all of the inactive intermittent bugs get closed as worksforme or > invalid? > > On Mon, Sep 28,

Re: Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

What if the query was changed to only count bugs resolved 'fixed'? I believe all of the inactive intermittent bugs get closed as worksforme or invalid? On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-09-28 7:26 AM, Carsten Book wrote: > >> 3. Statistics >> >> Intermittent Bugs f

Re: Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

On 2015-09-28 7:26 AM, Carsten Book wrote: 3. Statistics Intermittent Bugs filed this month [1]: 400 Intermittent Bugs closed this month [2]: 214 In the past couple of weekends, I spent some time fixing the worst offenders in intermittent oranges according to OrangeFactor, and the number 214

Re: About static analyzers on some various projects

On 2015-09-28 2:10 AM, Philip Chee wrote: On 28/09/2015 02:29, Jörg Knobloch wrote: This showed up on the Thunderbird development mailing list: Hi. I want to inform you that Thunderbird was checked by PVS-Studio (static analyzer of C/C++ code). You can find summary of the check here

Re: About static analyzers on some various projects

On 28/09/2015 09:01, Jörg Knobloch wrote: How about this one? http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/widget/windows/nsNativeThemeWin.cpp#924 That's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208906 Tracking bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710966 So it's all goo

Re: About static analyzers on some various projects

On 2015-09-28 3:01 AM, Jörg Knobloch wrote: On 27/09/2015 23:22, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Thanks! I submitted fixes for a number of these. Great. I saw these bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208905 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org

Re: About static analyzers on some various projects

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-09-25 7:35 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ehsan Akhgari > > wrote: >> >> On 2015-09-25 12:01 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: >> >> At Mozilla, it seems like pr

[Firefox Desktop] Issues found: September 21st to September 25th

Hi everyone, Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Manual QA team last week (Week 39: September 21 - September 25). Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the plans for the current week can be found at: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Deskto

Sheriffing Newsletter, End of September Edition

Hi, To give a little insight into our work and make our work more visible to our Community we decided to create a monthly report of what's going on in the Sheriffs Team. If you have questions or feedback just let us know! In case you don't know who the sheriffs are or if there are current issue

Re: About static analyzers on some various projects

On 27/09/2015 23:22, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Thanks! I submitted fixes for a number of these. Great. I saw these bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208905 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208903 https://bugzilla.moz