[MemSheriff] Enable tcmalloc for valgrind again.

[MemSheriff] Enable tcmalloc for valgrind again.

tcmalloc was disabled in crrev.com/1668643002 - and from that point on,
the WebKit valgrind bot was continuously red. Reverting to see if that
ameliorates the issue.

Revert "Disable tcmalloc when building for valgrind"

This reverts commit 65aeea273767bd69a8824e36972995b278161089.

BUG=582398
R=thakis@chromium.org
TBR=bratell@opera.com, thestig@chromium.org, reillyg@chromium.org, primiano@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/adb04eb75920376f6118849dcf16b8f0238e2b25
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#376041}

[Nico, 2016-02-17 22:36:22]

lgtm

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-02-17 22:36:53]

The CQ bit was checked by groby@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-17 22:39:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1707983002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1707983002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-18 00:07:14]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-18 00:08:09]

Description was changed from

==========
[MemSheriff] Enable tcmalloc for valgrind again.

tcmalloc was disabled in crrev.com/1668643002 - and from that point on,
the WebKit valgrind bot was continuously red. Reverting to see if that
ameliorates the issue.

Revert "Disable tcmalloc when building for valgrind"

This reverts commit 65aeea273767bd69a8824e36972995b278161089.

BUG=582398
R=thakis@chromium.org
TBR=bratell@opera.com, thestig@chromium.org, reillyg@chromium.org,
primiano@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
[MemSheriff] Enable tcmalloc for valgrind again.

tcmalloc was disabled in crrev.com/1668643002 - and from that point on,
the WebKit valgrind bot was continuously red. Reverting to see if that
ameliorates the issue.

Revert "Disable tcmalloc when building for valgrind"

This reverts commit 65aeea273767bd69a8824e36972995b278161089.

BUG=582398
R=thakis@chromium.org
TBR=bratell@opera.com, thestig@chromium.org, reillyg@chromium.org,
primiano@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/adb04eb75920376f6118849dcf16b8f0238e2b25
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#376041}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-18 00:08:10]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/adb04eb75920376f6118849dcf16b8f0238e2b25
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#376041}

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-02-18 00:12:36]

dpranke@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dpranke@chromium.org

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-02-18 00:12:37]

As an aside, didn't we reach consensus a couple months ago that no one really
cared that much about the webkit valgrind bot and we should just turn it off?

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-02-18 00:37:04]

On 2016/02/18 00:12:37, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> As an aside, didn't we reach consensus a couple months ago that no one really
> cared that much about the webkit valgrind bot and we should just turn it off?

I think we're always two steps away from consensus. If we just want to turn it
off, *I* would be happy - it'd drastically reduce the actual work of memory
sheriffing. It still does find valid issues from time to time, but mostly it's
noise related to the fact that LayoutTests don't care about proper teardown.

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-02-18 01:05:59]

On 2016/02/18 00:37:04, groby wrote:
> On 2016/02/18 00:12:37, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > As an aside, didn't we reach consensus a couple months ago that no one
really
> > cared that much about the webkit valgrind bot and we should just turn it
off?
> 
> I think we're always two steps away from consensus. If we just want to turn it
> off, *I* would be happy - it'd drastically reduce the actual work of memory
> sheriffing. It still does find valid issues from time to time, but mostly it's
> noise related to the fact that LayoutTests don't care about proper teardown.

No, I think we actually got consensus on this, see:

https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/chrome-valgrind-team/34mG6vafZPU...

(internal Google link, sorry!).

At least, that's close enough to consensus for me to declare a decision by fiat
:).

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-02-18 02:24:59]

On 2016/02/18 01:05:59, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On 2016/02/18 00:37:04, groby wrote:
> > On 2016/02/18 00:12:37, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > As an aside, didn't we reach consensus a couple months ago that no one
> really
> > > cared that much about the webkit valgrind bot and we should just turn it
> off?
> > 
> > I think we're always two steps away from consensus. If we just want to turn
it
> > off, *I* would be happy - it'd drastically reduce the actual work of memory
> > sheriffing. It still does find valid issues from time to time, but mostly
it's
> > noise related to the fact that LayoutTests don't care about proper teardown.
> 
> No, I think we actually got consensus on this, see:
> 
>
https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/chrome-valgrind-team/34mG6vafZPU...
> 
> (internal Google link, sorry!).
> 
> At least, that's close enough to consensus for me to declare a decision by
fiat
> :).

And outside of the disable/don't debate: This CL landing turned valgrind
insta-green, so I guessed right. Yay Memory Guessing, I mean Sheriffing :)