On 4/17/2013 3:07 PM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
analyze_talos.py does identify several real regressions in that dataset
-- but it suppresses emails for them because each one is an increase of
less than 2% (see bug 822249). Here are regressions identified by the
latest version of analyze.py:
In case
On 4/18/2013 12:10 PM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
Since we run PGO builds only a few times a day, the ranges can be large.
For those that include m-c merges, you could narrow them down using
the m-c data. WebIDL seems to be a common theme.
I filed
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
there was something common in all four of them, they _all_ included
changes to the build system which would cause most of the tree to be
rebuilt
*snip*
Is this merely a correlation?
Surely if it wasn't, then clobber builds would have the lowest memory
consumption?
We also still have bug 845840 - File a support request with ms on our pgo
problems. As soon as we sort out the account stuff we can file something.
Jim
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 05:39:30AM -0500, Jim Mathies wrote:
We also still have bug 845840 - File a support request with ms on
our pgo problems. As soon as we sort out the account stuff we can
file something.
I doubt we can get a satisfactory response from MS before things blow
out (if at all)
On 2013-04-16 4:59 AM, Neil wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Is this merely a correlation?
Surely if it wasn't, then clobber builds would have the lowest memory
consumption?
Well, clobber builds delete everything in your objdir. but these builds
just cause a whole lot to be rebuilt (I think).
On 2013-04-13 4:28 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
For almost three months now, we've had graphs following the amount of
memory used by the linker on Windows builders during PGO builds. The
result can be seen here:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Asa Dotzler a...@mozilla.com wrote:
I have a really basic question. Is PGO's performance gains something users
are actually going to notice or are we mostly talking about synthetic
benchmark pissing contests here?
It seems to me that benchmark results affect
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:28:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
I think we need to start thinking how to make PGO opt-in instead of
opt-out, while keeping performance where it is now.
In fact, I'm wondering if at this point it wouldn't just make sense to
start the other way around, that is, to
On 4/13/2013 1:59 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:28:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
I think we need to start thinking how to make PGO opt-in instead of
opt-out, while keeping performance where it is now.
I have a really basic question. Is PGO's performance gains something
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Asa Dotzler a...@mozilla.com wrote:
I have a really basic question. Is PGO's performance gains something users
are actually going to notice or are we mostly talking about synthetic
benchmark pissing contests here?
As we saw when we accidentally disabled it
11 matches
Mail list logo
