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? On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Chase Phillips <c...@google.com> 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 <j...@chromium.org>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 <t...@google.com> 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 <j...@chromium.org>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 <bre...@google.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> >>>>> 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: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >>>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> > > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
