Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan] Reporter
	Description • 7 years ago

We have detected an awsy regression from push:

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=a6f674d433fce89a550c232351885b6f93fe606a&tochange=2efe54944e8cb91f1198d0c55ccb440de5b37997

As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.

Regressions:

 24%  Resident Memory linux64-qr opt stylo     1,172,348,020.08 -> 1,454,359,173.67


You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=12712

On the page above you can see an alert for each affected platform as well as a link to a graph showing the history of scores for this test. There is also a link to a treeherder page showing the jobs in a pushlog format.

To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/AWSY/Tests

	Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan] Reporter
	Comment 1 • 7 years ago

:aosmond This regressions happens only on the Linux x64 QR platform. Is this something we can fix or should we consider accepting it or maybe back it out?

	Andrew Osmond [:aosmond] (he/him) Assignee
	Comment 2 • 7 years ago

When bug 1453801 relands, I will ensure this regression is avoided then.

	Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan] Reporter
	Comment 3 • 7 years ago

The relanding of the bug's 1453801 new implementation resolved the resident memory regression. As observed by aosmond, we got this regression instead.

== Change summary for alert #12873 (as of Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:57:28 GMT) ==

Regressions:

 26%  Images linux64-qr opt stylo     5,346,245.37 -> 6,743,586.09

Improvements:

  8%  Resident Memory linux64-qr opt stylo     1,171,507,100.03 -> 1,079,530,212.23

For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=12873

	Andrew Osmond [:aosmond] (he/him) Assignee
	Comment 4 • 7 years ago

Yes. Unfortunately we'll have to accept the images increase -- if you compare it to linux64, they are now very similar, which is what I would expect. WebRender isn't doing anything special to reduce our rasterized image footprint as compared to non-WebRender. As it turns out, we were actually underreporting WebRender consumption due to bugs I resolved in bug 1453801.