CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Committed: https://crrev.com/0bc588b1289ff9bda42a91ed8f57eaf0e36d7978
Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#417132}

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 07:39:16]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

BUG=604280
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 07:39:29]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 07:39:46]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 07:48:27]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/1/cc/animation/element_animat...
File cc/animation/element_animations_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/1/cc/animation/element_animat...
cc/animation/element_animations_unittest.cc:2088:
animations->SetNeedsPushProperties();
It notifies blink about takover and then suddenly expects the animation to be
deleted.
What code causes this deletion in real case?

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:15:18]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom to top objects in the hierarchy of ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:16:27]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom to top objects in the hierarchy of ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of an object ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:16:53]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of an object ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:17:50]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolated untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:18:26]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolated untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate the untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-22 08:18:40]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate the untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 08:44:59]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 08:45:00]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[ymalik, 2016-08-22 14:40:00]

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

[ymalik, 2016-08-22 14:40:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/1/cc/animation/element_animat...
File cc/animation/element_animations_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/1/cc/animation/element_animat...
cc/animation/element_animations_unittest.cc:2088:
animations->SetNeedsPushProperties();
On 2016/08/22 07:48:27, loyso wrote:
> It notifies blink about takover and then suddenly expects the animation to be
> deleted.
> What code causes this deletion in real case?

The purpose of the Takeover notification is to continue an impl-only scroll
offset animation on the MT. We need this for cases where a main thread scrolling
reason gets added while an impl-only scroll offset animation is in progress (see
crbug.com/581875).

On the impl-side, an animation is put into the ABORTED_BUT_NEEDS_COMPLETION
state
(https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/cc/animation/element_animations.cc?rcl=0...).
Then, it is marked for deletion during the next call to
ElementAnimation::UpdateState
(https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/cc/animation/element_animations.cc?rcl=0...).

On the mt-side, when we get a Takeover message, the old animation curve is
passed on to blink's ScrollAnimator, and we finish the animation on the MT.

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-23 05:54:21]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 05:54:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:55:27]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:55:27]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-24 04:05:08]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-24 04:05:35]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-24 04:58:16]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-24 04:58:17]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-24 05:50:46]

loyso@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ajuma@chromium.org
- ymalik@chromium.org

[ajuma, 2016-08-24 15:52:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
File cc/test/animation_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
cc/test/animation_test_common.cc:238: target->SetNeedsPushProperties();
Wdyt of making ElementAnimations responsible for setting needs_push_properties
on itself on calls like AddAnimation, rather than making the caller responsible?
That seems more consistent with how needs_push_properties gets set on other
types, and also means we don't need to add these test-only calls to
SetNeedsPushProperties.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that uses it
fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below rather
than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the failure).

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-25 00:38:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
File cc/test/animation_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
cc/test/animation_test_common.cc:238: target->SetNeedsPushProperties();
On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> Wdyt of making ElementAnimations responsible for setting needs_push_properties
> on itself on calls like AddAnimation, rather than making the caller
responsible?
> That seems more consistent with how needs_push_properties gets set on other
> types, and also means we don't need to add these test-only calls to
> SetNeedsPushProperties.
ElementAnimations::AddAnimation is a legacy from LAC. I want to move animations_
array (together with Add/Remove etc methods) from ElementAnimation to
AnimationPlayer as a next CL and as a part of http://crbug.com/592873

Overall, we decided with vollick@ that we should make ElementAnimations as small
as possible and hide it eventually.

Also, we must to rewrite ElementAnimations tests to use AnimationPlayer instead
(as a part of http://crbug.com/592873).

Anyway, I can move this SetNeedsPushProperties calls into ElementAnimations
temporarily (so it would be a bit redundant).

What do you think?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that uses
it
> fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below rather
> than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the failure).
Failures in each particular are very rare - those are exceptional situations. On
the contrary, we read/modify/support the test code on a permanent basis. Code
bloating doesn't help in this case at all.

Do you suggest to replace function with a macro?

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-25 00:55:50]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that uses
it
> fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below rather
> than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the failure).
I can replace it with CHECK so it crashes and shows the backtrace.

[danakj, 2016-08-25 01:05:59]

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

[danakj, 2016-08-25 01:06:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
On 2016/08/25 00:55:50, loyso wrote:
> On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> > Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that
uses
> it
> > fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below
rather
> > than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the
failure).
> I can replace it with CHECK so it crashes and shows the backtrace.

You can return false from this function if any expectations fail (and
ADD_FAILURE() what it was). Then EXPECT_TRUE() on calls to this function.

[danakj, 2016-08-25 01:06:25]

On 2016/08/25 01:06:00, danakj wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
> File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
> cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
> AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
> On 2016/08/25 00:55:50, loyso wrote:
> > On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> > > Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that
> uses
> > it
> > > fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below
> rather
> > > than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the
> failure).
> > I can replace it with CHECK so it crashes and shows the backtrace.
> 
> You can return false from this function if any expectations fail (and
> ADD_FAILURE() what it was). Then EXPECT_TRUE() on calls to this function.

Or, you can SCOPED_TRACE() for each call to the function, so failures show where
it came from.

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-25 03:58:50]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-25 03:59:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
File cc/test/animation_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_test_...
cc/test/animation_test_common.cc:238: target->SetNeedsPushProperties();
On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> Wdyt of making ElementAnimations responsible for setting needs_push_properties
> on itself on calls like AddAnimation, rather than making the caller
responsible?
> That seems more consistent with how needs_push_properties gets set on other
> types, and also means we don't need to add these test-only calls to
> SetNeedsPushProperties.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
File cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2261113002/diff/40001/cc/test/animation_timel...
cc/test/animation_timelines_test_common.cc:521: void
AnimationTimelinesTest::ExpectPlayerTimelineNeedsPushProperties(
On 2016/08/25 01:05:59, danakj wrote:
> On 2016/08/25 00:55:50, loyso wrote:
> > On 2016/08/24 15:52:37, ajuma wrote:
> > > Putting this in a function rather than a macro means that if a test that
> uses
> > it
> > > fails, the line number that gets output will be one of the lines below
> rather
> > > than the calling line in the test (so it's harder to track down the
> failure).
> > I can replace it with CHECK so it crashes and shows the backtrace.
> 
> You can return false from this function if any expectations fail (and
> ADD_FAILURE() what it was). Then EXPECT_TRUE() on calls to this function.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-25 03:59:09]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-25 05:02:24]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-25 05:02:25]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[ajuma, 2016-08-25 14:33:03]

Thanks, lgtm

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-28 23:10:44]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-28 23:10:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 00:09:44]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 00:09:45]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-29 06:01:27]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 06:01:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 07:09:35]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 07:09:36]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 07:11:09]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 07:11:10]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}

[lazyboy, 2016-08-29 23:30:16]

A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/2290633003/ by lazyboy@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: Since build
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Tests/builds/45513,
PluginPowerSaver.PosterTests and
PluginPowerSaver.SmallerThanPlayIcon
started flaking, timing out in VerifySnapshot:
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/chrome/browser/plugins/plugin_power_save...

Speculatively reverting to see if that helps....

[loyso (OOO), 2016-08-30 03:49:23]

On 2016/08/29 23:30:16, lazyboy wrote:
> A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2290633003/ by mailto:lazyboy@chromium.org.
> 
> The reason for reverting is: Since build
>
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Tests/builds/45513,
> PluginPowerSaver.PosterTests and
> PluginPowerSaver.SmallerThanPlayIcon
> started flaking, timing out in VerifySnapshot:
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/chrome/browser/plugins/plugin_power_save...
> 
> Speculatively reverting to see if that helps....

Has it helped?

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-02 02:30:28]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-02 02:31:34]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-02 02:31:59]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-02 03:32:03]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-02 03:32:04]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-07 04:17:25]

ajuma@, PTAL! Now it's simple.
The fix for the root problem of flakiness is here:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2313593002/
(Totally unrelated)

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-07 04:18:00]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 04:18:19]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 05:14:08]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 05:14:09]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[ajuma, 2016-09-07 13:17:07]

On 2016/09/07 04:17:25, loyso wrote:
> ajuma@, PTAL! Now it's simple.
> The fix for the root problem of flakiness is here:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2313593002/
> (Totally unrelated)

lgtm

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-07 23:49:30]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 23:50:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 23:57:02]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 23:57:03]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[loyso (OOO), 2016-09-08 00:28:44]

The CQ bit was checked by loyso@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-08 00:29:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-08 00:34:02]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-08 00:34:04]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-08 00:37:12]

Description was changed from

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
==========

to

==========
CC Animation: Introduce some dirty flags to optimize PushProperties on commit

The idea is that we invalidate needs_push_properties flag
from bottom-to-top in the hierarchy of ownership.

It helps us to isolate untouched groups of objects.

BUG=604280
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ec9dd4962683e1fe12734a6756e825df2db10ca
Committed: https://crrev.com/0bc588b1289ff9bda42a91ed8f57eaf0e36d7978
Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#414981}
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#417132}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-08 00:37:13]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/0bc588b1289ff9bda42a91ed8f57eaf0e36d7978
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#417132}