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
