Closed
Bug 1513521
Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
(rasterizing blobs twice) 23.48 - 60.08% tsvg_static / tsvgr_opacity / tsvgx (linux64-qr, windows10-64-qr) regression on push 5d24ac329431289a8966eabc3325228dfd7f2c4d (Tue Dec 11 2018)
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: WebRender, defect, P2)
Core
Graphics: WebRender
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla66
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr60 | --- | unaffected |
firefox64 | --- | unaffected |
firefox65 | --- | wontfix |
firefox66 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: Bebe, Assigned: jrmuizel)
References
Details
(Keywords: perf, regression, talos-regression)
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/pushloghtml?changeset=5d24ac329431289a8966eabc3325228dfd7f2c4d As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 60% tsvgx opt e10s stylo 220.25 -> 352.57 59% tsvgx opt e10s stylo 346.94 -> 552.44 36% tsvgr_opacity opt e10s stylo 119.98 -> 162.59 34% tsvg_static opt e10s stylo 64.03 -> 86.09 27% tsvgr_opacity opt e10s stylo 112.24 -> 143.03 23% tsvg_static opt e10s stylo 45.92 -> 56.70 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=18133 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 Talos jobs in a pushlog format. To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance_sheriffing/Talos/Tests For information on reproducing and debugging the regression, either on try or locally, see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance_sheriffing/Talos/Running *** Please let us know your plans within 3 business days, or the offending patch(es) will be backed out! *** Our wiki page outlines the common responses and expectations: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance_sheriffing/Talos/RegressionBugsHandling
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
This also caused a regression on raptor: == Change summary for alert #18115 (as of Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:07:31 GMT) == Regressions: 8% raptor-motionmark-animometer-firefox opt 39.17 -> 35.91 5% raptor-motionmark-animometer-firefox opt 38.79 -> 36.77 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=18115
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
I think we might be hitting a case more often where we allocate the heap space for rasterized blobs and move stuff around. I don't think we do more work actually rasterizing any SvGs. Working on a quick fix now.
Assignee: nobody → dmalyshau
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: needinfo?(dmalyshau)
Updated•6 years ago
|
Blocks: stage-wr-trains
Priority: -- → P2
Updated•6 years ago
|
See Also: → https://github.com/servo/webrender/pull/3405
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
This caused a regression in beta == Change summary for alert #18249 (as of Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:20:53 GMT) == Regressions: 69% tsvgx opt e10s stylo 320.02 -> 542.08 58% tsvgx opt e10s stylo 218.93 -> 345.76 39% tsvgr_opacity opt e10s stylo 115.22 -> 160.58 35% tsvg_static opt e10s stylo 62.54 -> 84.37 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=18249
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Also the raptor regression == Change summary for alert #18250 (as of Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:20:53 GMT) == Regressions: 6% raptor-motionmark-animometer-firefox opt 39.54 -> 36.99 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=18250
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Wow, that's quite a significant change here, and not expected. I'm actually puzzled on how this small change could have caused a 50% `tsvgx` regression. Going to look at it ASAP.
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
Does bug 1513746 just need an uplift? Did it fix the perf regression on Nightly?
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
I looked at tsvg_static tests from the try run, and they seemed to indicate an improvement: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/comparesubtest?originalProject=try&originalRevision=a571d97ed59e0341e27380c378b9b33353be7cb1&newProject=try&newRevision=26ea31fd69e8ed47167f33afefbd711424f0250a&originalSignature=6e4abd046a0f519e61e3bf63050d34467c391e19&newSignature=6e4abd046a0f519e61e3bf63050d34467c391e19&framework=1 Was I looking at the wrong thing?
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dzmitry Malyshau [:kvark] from comment #7) > I looked at tsvg_static tests from the try run, and they seemed to indicate > an improvement: > https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/ > comparesubtest?originalProject=try&originalRevision=a571d97ed59e0341e27380c37 > 8b9b33353be7cb1&newProject=try&newRevision=26ea31fd69e8ed47167f33afefbd711424 > f0250a&originalSignature=6e4abd046a0f519e61e3bf63050d34467c391e19&newSignatur > e=6e4abd046a0f519e61e3bf63050d34467c391e19&framework=1 > > Was I looking at the wrong thing? This link is showing that the patch https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/ca44fb823d41296681792f75c3cc777c0c32f077 made things worse. i.e. the "new" results from [1] are worse than the "base" results from [2]. [1] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=26ea31fd69e8ed47167f33afefbd711424f0250a [2] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=a571d97ed59e0341e27380c378b9b33353be7cb1 (In reply to Jan Andre Ikenmeyer [:darkspirit] from comment #6) > Does bug 1513746 just need an uplift? Did it fix the perf regression on > Nightly? It doesn't look like the regression is fixed on Nightly: Windows: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?series=autoland,1686448,1,1&series=autoland,1686495,1,1&series=autoland,1686440,1,1 Linux: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?series=autoland,1683650,1,1&series=autoland,1683603,1,1&series=autoland,1683595,1,1
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dzmitry Malyshau [:kvark] from comment #9) > Oh right, it's base vs new, not the other way around :/ I read it wrong. Any updates on this matter?
Flags: needinfo?(dmalyshau)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
It looks like tsvgx 4.xml was one of the subsets that moved the most.
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Here is what I know about the situation:
- I'm just back from a long holiday, sorry about the silence!
- The patch fixed a glaring correctness issue that was causing a number one crash. Note: it's not the follow-ups that caused the regression (i.e https://github.com/servo/webrender/pull/3405), they are harmless.
- The patch makes it mostly correct, and fully addressess the crashing. There is a scenario though where the frame builder would work with newer version of the blobs than the scene has, so it's not fully correct.
- It is possible that making it fully correct would resolve the performance regression, even though I don't think calling it "regression" is fare at all, since the old code wasn't proper in the first place.
- Regardless, we just need to investigate the case in more depth and fix it. If :nical is currently too busy to do so, I'll be willing to take care of it.
Flags: needinfo?(dmalyshau) → needinfo?(nical.bugzilla)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
So I did some quick counting of blob image rasterizations before and after https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/pushloghtml?changeset=5d24ac329431289a8966eabc3325228dfd7f2c4d.
Before, we rasterize testing/talos/talos/tests/svgx/hixie-004.xml about 1444 times. After, we rasterize the same test 2888 times. This explains the performance regression.
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee: dmalyshau → nical.bugzilla
Updated•6 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(nical.bugzilla)
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Summary: 23.48 - 60.08% tsvg_static / tsvgr_opacity / tsvgx (linux64-qr, windows10-64-qr) regression on push 5d24ac329431289a8966eabc3325228dfd7f2c4d (Tue Dec 11 2018) → (rasterizing blobs twice) 23.48 - 60.08% tsvg_static / tsvgr_opacity / tsvgx (linux64-qr, windows10-64-qr) regression on push 5d24ac329431289a8966eabc3325228dfd7f2c4d (Tue Dec 11 2018)
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
I put up a PR for this at https://github.com/servo/webrender/pull/3491
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee: nical.bugzilla → jmuizelaar
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
This looks fixed to me.
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?timerange=5184000&series=autoland,1686495,1,1&series=autoland,1686440,1,1&series=autoland,1686448,1,1
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•6 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•6 years ago
|
status-firefox64:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox65:
--- → wontfix
status-firefox66:
--- → fixed
status-firefox-esr60:
--- → unaffected
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla66
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•