WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295, chromium:671121
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#457085}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e82554d88243ad84ee3329e7e17ddc6c22e8c250

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 10:36:25]

Description was changed from

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

BUG=chromium:632295
==========

to

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

BUG=chromium:632295
==========

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 10:36:26]

ehmaldonado@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ eakuefner@chromium.org, nednguyen@chromium.org

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 10:41:44]

Please take a look :)

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 10:43:14]

Description was changed from

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

BUG=chromium:632295
==========

to

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at
https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295
==========

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 10:54:25]

On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> Please take a look :)

Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would be your
process?

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 16:48:14]

On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > Please take a look :)
> 
> Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would be
your
> process?

Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the TBMv2
one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
Do you have any suggestions?

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 16:48:19]

On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > Please take a look :)
> 
> Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would be
your
> process?

Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the TBMv2
one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
Do you have any suggestions?

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 16:51:28]

On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > Please take a look :)
> > 
> > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would be
> your
> > process?
> 
> Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the TBMv2
> one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> Do you have any suggestions?

That sounds good to me for trying out the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2. Though
I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which lead to 5
different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc benchmarks to
one.

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 17:18:59]

On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > Please take a look :)
> > > 
> > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would
be
> > your
> > > process?
> > 
> > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the
TBMv2
> > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > Do you have any suggestions?
> 
> That sounds good to me for trying out the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
Though
> I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which lead to
5
> different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc benchmarks
to
> one.

Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't know if
it'd be a good idea to join them.

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 17:22:04]

On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > 
> > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what would
> be
> > > your
> > > > process?
> > > 
> > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the
> TBMv2
> > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > 
> > That sounds good to me for trying out the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> Though
> > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which lead
to
> 5
> > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc benchmarks
> to
> > one.
> 
> Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't know if
> it'd be a good idea to join them.

I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 17:42:52]

On 2017/03/13 17:22:04, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what
would
> > be
> > > > your
> > > > > process?
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure the
> > TBMv2
> > > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > > 
> > > That sounds good to me for trying out the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> > Though
> > > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which
lead
> to
> > 5
> > > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc
benchmarks
> > to
> > > one.
> > 
> > Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't know
if
> > it'd be a good idea to join them.
> 
> I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...

Thanks! I'll take a look
Somewhat related:
When I go to the perf dashboard, it says that webrtc.{getusermedia, datachannel}
are monitored (or at least they don't have the 'unmonitored' text next to them),
but they don't seem to be monitored by us. Do you know who does, or who should I
ask? It might make sense for us to own them.

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 17:49:17]

On 2017/03/13 17:42:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 17:22:04, nednguyen wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what
> would
> > > be
> > > > > your
> > > > > > process?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure
the
> > > TBMv2
> > > > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > > > 
> > > > That sounds good to me for trying out the
webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> > > Though
> > > > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which
> lead
> > to
> > > 5
> > > > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc
> benchmarks
> > > to
> > > > one.
> > > 
> > > Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't know
> if
> > > it'd be a good idea to join them.
> > 
> > I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...
> 
> Thanks! I'll take a look
> Somewhat related:
> When I go to the perf dashboard, it says that webrtc.{getusermedia,
datachannel}
> are monitored (or at least they don't have the 'unmonitored' text next to
them),
> but they don't seem to be monitored by us. Do you know who does, or who should
I
> ask? It might make sense for us to own them.

Can you send an email to sullivan@ & simonhatch@ about this

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-13 18:00:33]

On 2017/03/13 17:49:17, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 17:42:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 17:22:04, nednguyen wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so, what
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > process?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to ensure
> the
> > > > TBMv2
> > > > > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > > > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That sounds good to me for trying out the
> webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> > > > Though
> > > > > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc which
> > lead
> > > to
> > > > 5
> > > > > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc
> > benchmarks
> > > > to
> > > > > one.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't
know
> > if
> > > > it'd be a good idea to join them.
> > > 
> > > I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
> > >
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...
> > 
> > Thanks! I'll take a look
> > Somewhat related:
> > When I go to the perf dashboard, it says that webrtc.{getusermedia,
> datachannel}
> > are monitored (or at least they don't have the 'unmonitored' text next to
> them),
> > but they don't seem to be monitored by us. Do you know who does, or who
should
> I
> > ask? It might make sense for us to own them.
> 
> Can you send an email to sullivan@ & simonhatch@ about this

Done.
Do you have an example of tagging?

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 18:06:47]

On 2017/03/13 18:00:33, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 17:49:17, nednguyen wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 17:42:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 17:22:04, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so,
what
> > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > process?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to
ensure
> > the
> > > > > TBMv2
> > > > > > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > > > > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That sounds good to me for trying out the
> > webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> > > > > Though
> > > > > > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc
which
> > > lead
> > > > to
> > > > > 5
> > > > > > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc
> > > benchmarks
> > > > > to
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I don't
> know
> > > if
> > > > > it'd be a good idea to join them.
> > > > 
> > > > I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...
> > > 
> > > Thanks! I'll take a look
> > > Somewhat related:
> > > When I go to the perf dashboard, it says that webrtc.{getusermedia,
> > datachannel}
> > > are monitored (or at least they don't have the 'unmonitored' text next to
> > them),
> > > but they don't seem to be monitored by us. Do you know who does, or who
> should
> > I
> > > ask? It might make sense for us to own them.
> > 
> > Can you send an email to sullivan@ & simonhatch@ about this
> 
> Done.
> Do you have an example of tagging?

https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...

[nednguyen, 2017-03-13 18:09:37]

On 2017/03/13 18:06:47, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/13 18:00:33, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > On 2017/03/13 17:49:17, nednguyen wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/13 17:42:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/13 17:22:04, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/13 17:18:59, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/13 16:51:28, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 16:48:19, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:54:25, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2017/03/13 10:41:44, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Please take a look :)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Do you plan on removing all the old webrtc benchmarks? If so,
> what
> > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > process?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yeah. We would monitor both versions for a couple of weeks to
> ensure
> > > the
> > > > > > TBMv2
> > > > > > > > one works as expected, and then delete the old one.
> > > > > > > > Do you have any suggestions?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That sounds good to me for trying out the
> > > webrtc.webrtc_smoothness_tbmv2.
> > > > > > Though
> > > > > > > I noticed that you have 5 different set of pages used for webrtc
> which
> > > > lead
> > > > > to
> > > > > > 5
> > > > > > > different webrtc benchmarks. I would want to unify those 5 webrtc
> > > > benchmarks
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, each of those page sets is testing something different. I
don't
> > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > it'd be a good idea to join them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have this doc about managing page sets through tagging:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8JG5988sB8ncznEjjQNfurRl6V8B2xML-kX07cQX...
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks! I'll take a look
> > > > Somewhat related:
> > > > When I go to the perf dashboard, it says that webrtc.{getusermedia,
> > > datachannel}
> > > > are monitored (or at least they don't have the 'unmonitored' text next
to
> > > them),
> > > > but they don't seem to be monitored by us. Do you know who does, or who
> > should
> > > I
> > > > ask? It might make sense for us to own them.
> > > 
> > > Can you send an email to sullivan@ & simonhatch@ about this
> > 
> > Done.
> > Do you have an example of tagging?
> 
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...

Having said that I want a unify media benchmark, I think we should do these two
things in two separate steps:
1) Verify that the new webrtc benchmarks give you comparable result to the old
one
2) Create a unified webrtc benchmark.

For 1), I am fine with checking in this webrtc tbm2 benchmark, but you should
create a unify webrtc benchmark in TBM2 instead of moving all the old webrtc
benchmark to the corresponding tbmv2 version.

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 09:36:14]

>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...
> 
> Having said that I want a unify media benchmark, I think we should do these
two
> things in two separate steps:
> 1) Verify that the new webrtc benchmarks give you comparable result to the old
> one
> 2) Create a unified webrtc benchmark.
> 
> For 1), I am fine with checking in this webrtc tbm2 benchmark, but you should
> create a unify webrtc benchmark in TBM2 instead of moving all the old webrtc
> benchmark to the corresponding tbmv2 version.

Will do :)
Let's check this in. For the other benchmarks, we're only monitoring the
cpu_utilization, so we'll wait until the new version is available in a couple of
weeks.
In the mean time, I plan to work on adding traces to track the other metrics
we're interested in, and create TBMv2 metrics for them.
One thing that isn't that clear is, in the unified webrtc benchmark, would we
measure all metrics, or is there a way to tag the metrics as well?

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 19:11:40]

On 2017/03/14 09:36:14, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> >
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...
> > 
> > Having said that I want a unify media benchmark, I think we should do these
> two
> > things in two separate steps:
> > 1) Verify that the new webrtc benchmarks give you comparable result to the
old
> > one
> > 2) Create a unified webrtc benchmark.
> > 
> > For 1), I am fine with checking in this webrtc tbm2 benchmark, but you
should
> > create a unify webrtc benchmark in TBM2 instead of moving all the old webrtc
> > benchmark to the corresponding tbmv2 version.
> 
> Will do :)
> Let's check this in. For the other benchmarks, we're only monitoring the
> cpu_utilization, so we'll wait until the new version is available in a couple
of
> weeks.
> In the mean time, I plan to work on adding traces to track the other metrics
> we're interested in, and create TBMv2 metrics for them.
> One thing that isn't that clear is, in the unified webrtc benchmark, would we
> measure all metrics, or is there a way to tag the metrics as well?

Friendly ping.

[nednguyen, 2017-03-14 19:14:31]

On 2017/03/14 19:11:40, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> On 2017/03/14 09:36:14, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...
> > > 
> > > Having said that I want a unify media benchmark, I think we should do
these
> > two
> > > things in two separate steps:
> > > 1) Verify that the new webrtc benchmarks give you comparable result to the
> old
> > > one
> > > 2) Create a unified webrtc benchmark.
> > > 
> > > For 1), I am fine with checking in this webrtc tbm2 benchmark, but you
> should
> > > create a unify webrtc benchmark in TBM2 instead of moving all the old
webrtc
> > > benchmark to the corresponding tbmv2 version.
> > 
> > Will do :)
> > Let's check this in. For the other benchmarks, we're only monitoring the
> > cpu_utilization, so we'll wait until the new version is available in a
couple
> of
> > weeks.
> > In the mean time, I plan to work on adding traces to track the other metrics
> > we're interested in, and create TBMv2 metrics for them.
> > One thing that isn't that clear is, in the unified webrtc benchmark, would
we
> > measure all metrics, or is there a way to tag the metrics as well?
> 
> Friendly ping.

[nednguyen, 2017-03-14 19:17:59]

On 2017/03/14 19:14:31, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/14 19:11:40, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > On 2017/03/14 09:36:14, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/page_sets/loading_mobile.py?q...
> > > > 
> > > > Having said that I want a unify media benchmark, I think we should do
> these
> > > two
> > > > things in two separate steps:
> > > > 1) Verify that the new webrtc benchmarks give you comparable result to
the
> > old
> > > > one
> > > > 2) Create a unified webrtc benchmark.
> > > > 
> > > > For 1), I am fine with checking in this webrtc tbm2 benchmark, but you
> > should
> > > > create a unify webrtc benchmark in TBM2 instead of moving all the old
> webrtc
> > > > benchmark to the corresponding tbmv2 version.
> > > 
> > > Will do :)
> > > Let's check this in. For the other benchmarks, we're only monitoring the
> > > cpu_utilization, so we'll wait until the new version is available in a
> couple
> > of
> > > weeks.
> > > In the mean time, I plan to work on adding traces to track the other
metrics
> > > we're interested in, and create TBMv2 metrics for them.

Please sync with us about extra metrics you want to add. We may not have
bandwidth to review more metrics at the moment.

> > > One thing that isn't that clear is, in the unified webrtc benchmark, would
> we
> > > measure all metrics, or is there a way to tag the metrics as well?

We would measure all metrics.

> > 
> > Friendly ping.

I suggest the plan as follows:

1) Have an old legacy media benchmark migrated to tbmv2. (this CL)
2) Verify that the new one is as good as the old ones in term of catching
certain regressions
3) Create a new unify benchmarks (webrtc.desktop & maybe webrtc.mobile) in TBMv2
4) Delete all the old benchmark + temporary TBMv2 one in (1).
5) More metrics on top of the TBMv2 if needed.

[nednguyen, 2017-03-14 19:33:00]

nednguyen@google.com changed reviewers:
+ nednguyen@google.com

[nednguyen, 2017-03-14 19:33:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/webrt...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/webrt...
tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:105:
filter_string='webrtc,webkit.console,blink.console')
filter_string='webrtc,webkit.console,toplevel'

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/webrt...
tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:107:
options.SetTimelineBasedMetrics(['webrtcRenderingMetric'])
options.SetTimelineBasedMetrics(['webrtcRenderingMetric', 'cpuMetric'])

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 19:53:49]

Description was changed from

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at
https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295
==========

to

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at
https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295,chromium:671121
==========

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 19:54:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:109: 'expectedQueueingTimeMetric',
Because of crbug.com/671121

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 19:54:16]

On 2017/03/14 19:54:01, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
> File tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
> tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:109: 'expectedQueueingTimeMetric',
> Because of crbug.com/671121

PTAL

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-14 19:54:51]

ehmaldonado@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kjellander@chromium.org

[nednguyen, 2017-03-14 19:56:12]

On 2017/03/14 19:54:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:

cc'ed Tim: is expectedQueueingTimeMetric ready to use yet?

[tdresser, 2017-03-14 20:33:53]

On 2017/03/14 19:56:12, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/03/14 19:54:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> 
> cc'ed Tim: is expectedQueueingTimeMetric ready to use yet?

We've got some concerns about its variability, but yes, it's landed, and can be
used today.

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-15 12:50:47]

On 2017/03/14 20:33:53, tdresser wrote:
> On 2017/03/14 19:56:12, nednguyen wrote:
> > On 2017/03/14 19:54:52, ehmaldonado_chromium wrote:
> > 
> > cc'ed Tim: is expectedQueueingTimeMetric ready to use yet?
> 
> We've got some concerns about its variability, but yes, it's landed, and can
be
> used today.

So, should we submit this?

[nednguyen, 2017-03-15 13:26:38]

lgtm 

ok to land after addressing these nits below

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:98: class
WebrtcRenderingTBMv2(perf_benchmark.PerfBenchmark):
can you add @benchmark.Owner(emails=...) for this one?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/diff/20001/tools/perf/benchmarks/w...
tools/perf/benchmarks/webrtc.py:105:
filter_string='webrtc,webkit.console,toplevel')
you don't need webkit.console category.

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-15 13:59:51]

Patchset #3 (id:40001) has been deleted

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-15 14:04:44]

The CQ bit was checked by ehmaldonado@chromium.org

[ehmaldonado_chromium, 2017-03-15 14:04:45]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from nednguyen@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002/#ps60001
(title: "Address nits.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-15 14:05:01]

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, 2017-03-15 15:17:13]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 60001, "attempt_start_ts": 1489586684724870,
"parent_rev": "bdbe31846363ad6d21641f39a49628bcdb879e7f", "commit_rev":
"e82554d88243ad84ee3329e7e17ddc6c22e8c250"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-15 15:18:00]

Description was changed from

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at
https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295,chromium:671121
==========

to

==========
WebRTC: Add a TBMv2 version of the webrtc.webrtc_smoothness benchmark.

This adds the benchmark for the TBMv2 metric created at
https://codereview.chromium.org/2711623002/

BUG=chromium:632295,chromium:671121

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2742293002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#457085}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e82554d88243ad84ee3329e7e17d...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-15 15:18:01]

Committed patchset #3 (id:60001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e82554d88243ad84ee3329e7e17d...