Unsampling for the sampling heap profiler

test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc

Index: test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc
diff --git a/test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc b/test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc
index e720d92109ca13d23d08f42cde1edf79cf98fc9e..37a207a2fc999f5bd40ca5e5eb2a6166b026bd44 100644
--- a/test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc
+++ b/test/cctest/test-heap-profiler.cc
@@ -2929,7 +2929,7 @@ TEST(SamplingHeapProfiler) {
     CHECK(profile == nullptr);
   }
 
-  // Sampling at a higher rate should give us more sampled objects.
+  // Sampling at a higher rate should give us similar numbers of objects.
   {
     heap_profiler->StartSamplingHeapProfiler(32 * 1024);
     CompileRun(script_source);
@@ -2949,10 +2949,16 @@ TEST(SamplingHeapProfiler) {
       count_32kb += allocation.count;
     }
 
-    // We should have roughly 16x as many sampled allocations. However,
-    // alignment and boundaries might tweak the numbers slightly. We use a
-    // slightly weaker test to account for this.
-    CHECK_GT(count_32kb, 8 * count_512kb);
+    // We should have similar unsampled counts of allocations. Though
+    // we will sample different numbers of objects at different rates,
+    // the unsampling process should produce similar final estimates
+    // at the true number of allocations. However, the process to
+    // determine these unsampled counts is probabilisitic so we need to
+    // account for error.
+    double max_count = std::max(count_32kb, count_512kb);
+    double min_count = std::min(count_32kb, count_512kb);
+    double percent_difference = (max_count - min_count) / min_count;
+    CHECK_LT(percent_difference, 0.15);
 
     heap_profiler->StopSamplingHeapProfiler();
   }