Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1219653004:
disabled GrAALinearizingConvexRenderer for now (Closed)
|
Created:
5 years, 5 months ago by ethannicholas Modified:
5 years, 5 months ago CC:
reviews_skia.org Base URL:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git@master Target Ref:
refs/heads/master Project:
skia Visibility:
Public. |
Descriptiondisabled GrAALinearizingConvexRenderer for now
BUG=505579
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/4f3ad2948c87662ecfc7a94d3dac2bc118ebe5d2
Patch Set 1 #
Messages
Total messages: 16 (4 generated)
ethannicholas@google.com changed reviewers: + bsalomon@google.com, joshualitt@google.com, robertphillips@google.com
Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer for the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression properly.
On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer for > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression properly. Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still ignored?
On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer for > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > properly. > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still > ignored? I believe they were rebaselined.
bsalomon@google.com changed reviewers: + fmalita@google.com - joshualitt@google.com
On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer > for > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > > properly. > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still > > ignored? > > I believe they were rebaselined. Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin
bsalomon@google.com changed reviewers: + fmalita@chromium.org - fmalita@google.com
On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer > > for > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > > > properly. > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still > > > ignored? > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin -Floring_do_not_use
On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my renderer > > for > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > > > properly. > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still > > > ignored? > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin SGTM, I can do that after this CL lands and we get a failure list from the deps roller.
On 2015/07/08 19:52:42, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my > renderer > > > for > > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are still > > > > ignored? > > > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin > > SGTM, I can do that after this CL lands and we get a failure list from the deps > roller. (or I can try a linux_blink_rel run here - maybe that'll get faster results)
On 2015/07/08 19:56:16, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:52:42, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my > > renderer > > > > for > > > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance regression > > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are > still > > > > > ignored? > > > > > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > > > > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin > > > > SGTM, I can do that after this CL lands and we get a failure list from the > deps > > roller. > > (or I can try a linux_blink_rel run here - maybe that'll get faster results) ok great. lgtm
On 2015/07/08 20:03:56, bsalomon wrote: > On 2015/07/08 19:56:16, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:52:42, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my > > > renderer > > > > > for > > > > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance > regression > > > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are > > still > > > > > > ignored? > > > > > > > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > > > > > > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin > > > > > > SGTM, I can do that after this CL lands and we get a failure list from the > > deps > > > roller. > > > > (or I can try a linux_blink_rel run here - maybe that'll get faster results) > > ok great. lgtm Anyone know why the trybot failed to apply the patch? Sould I go ahead and commit or wait for that to get sorted out?
On 2015/07/08 at 20:05:05, ethannicholas wrote: > On 2015/07/08 20:03:56, bsalomon wrote: > > On 2015/07/08 19:56:16, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > > > On 2015/07/08 19:52:42, fmalita_google_do_not_use wrote: > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:38:46, bsalomon wrote: > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:34:42, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:32:45, bsalomon wrote: > > > > > > > On 2015/07/08 19:30:11, ethannicholas wrote: > > > > > > > > Given how close we are to branching, I'm just going to disable my > > > > renderer > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the time being so I have time to look into the performance > > regression > > > > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a good call. Do you know if the modified layout tests are > > > still > > > > > > > ignored? > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe they were rebaselined. > > > > > > > > > > Ok I think we will need to rerebaseline them. +Florin > > > > > > > > SGTM, I can do that after this CL lands and we get a failure list from the > > > deps > > > > roller. > > > > > > (or I can try a linux_blink_rel run here - maybe that'll get faster results) > > > > ok great. lgtm > > Anyone know why the trybot failed to apply the patch? Sould I go ahead and commit or wait for that to get sorted out? Yup, you should go ahead. I never tried running Skia patches against linux_blink_rel before, so it may not be supported.
The CQ bit was checked by ethannicholas@google.com
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1219653004/1
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/4f3ad2948c87662ecfc7a94d3dac2bc118ebe5d2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
