[Telemetry] Create loading.desktop, a desktop analog for loading.mobile

[Telemetry] Create loading.desktop, a desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#471274}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/bb9147ed072a94397e8d448ba7445c8f214230f3

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-04-26 20:53:36]

rnephew@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nednguyen@google.com

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-04-26 20:53:37]

Timing data from 3 runs:
real    36m6.627s
user    28m12.551s
sys     2m22.166s

real    36m20.708s
user    28m30.558s
sys     2m21.396s

real    36m4.105s
user    28m8.699s
sys     2m24.317s


I chose to only run it without traffic shaping. I know the loading.mobile
version does have traffic shaping; but I decided against adding it to the
desktop version because it didn't make sense to me to do 3g traffic shaping. If
I was wrong, we can just double the timing numbers and have a reasonable
expectation on how long it will take to run.

[nednguyen, 2017-04-26 21:02:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:30: return 'loading.%s' % cls.SUBNAME
its' better just uses the raw strings so people can code search for it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:45: cache_temperatures=[cache_temperature.ANY])
I think we would need cold & warm cache

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-04-26 21:15:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:30: return 'loading.%s' % cls.SUBNAME
On 2017/04/26 21:02:36, nednguyen wrote:
> its' better just uses the raw strings so people can code search for it.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:45: cache_temperatures=[cache_temperature.ANY])
On 2017/04/26 21:02:36, nednguyen wrote:
> I think we would need cold & warm cache 

The existing loading.mobile benchmark uses the same cache setting as this does.
Is there a reason we would want it here and not there?

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-04-26 21:40:14]

Description was changed from

==========
[Telemetry] Create desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
==========

to

==========
[Telemetry] Create desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
commit=False
==========

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-04-26 21:40:14]

rnephew@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kouhei@chromium.org, ksakamoto@chromium.org

[nednguyen, 2017-05-01 19:50:47]

Can you make the update & rerun to see how long does this take?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
File tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:45: cache_temperatures=[cache_temperature.ANY])
On 2017/04/26 21:15:43, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> On 2017/04/26 21:02:36, nednguyen wrote:
> > I think we would need cold & warm cache 
> 
> The existing loading.mobile benchmark uses the same cache setting as this
does.
> Is there a reason we would want it here and not there?

Not sure, but for now, we need to make sure that this matches the existing
page_cycler_v2 benchmarks, which include:
pageset_repeat = 2
cache_temperatures=[
          cache_temperature.PCV1_COLD, cache_temperature.PCV1_WARM]

(https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/benchmarks/page_cycler_v2.py?...)

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-02 20:35:26]

On 2017/05/01 19:50:47, nednguyen wrote:
> Can you make the update & rerun to see how long does this take?
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
> File tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/diff/1/tools/perf/benchmarks/loadi...
> tools/perf/benchmarks/loading.py:45:
cache_temperatures=[cache_temperature.ANY])
> On 2017/04/26 21:15:43, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> > On 2017/04/26 21:02:36, nednguyen wrote:
> > > I think we would need cold & warm cache 
> > 
> > The existing loading.mobile benchmark uses the same cache setting as this
> does.
> > Is there a reason we would want it here and not there?
> 
> Not sure, but for now, we need to make sure that this matches the existing
> page_cycler_v2 benchmarks, which include:
> pageset_repeat = 2
> cache_temperatures=[
>           cache_temperature.PCV1_COLD, cache_temperature.PCV1_WARM]
> 
>
(https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/tools/perf/benchmarks/page_cycler_v2.py?...)

I set it to use cold and warm caches. I had to disable theonion and indiatimes
because they kept crashing everytime I tried to run it. We can realistically
expect it to take  around ten minutes longer with those 4 stories running
(pageset-repeat=2, 2 cache settings).

real	81m46.865s
user	62m40.776s
sys	4m46.792s

I will do a few more runs to confirm that it is stably around this time.

[nednguyen, 2017-05-06 00:11:10]

nednguyen@google.com changed reviewers:
+ charliea@chromium.org

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-10 17:40:48]

Ok, I added names and the timing data is under the threshold we wanted (locally
anyway, we'll have to see what the bots think about it).

Anyone have any problem with me dropping the commit=false and the [DO NOT LAND]?

[kouhei (in TOK), 2017-05-10 17:47:46]

lgtm

On 2017/05/10 17:40:48, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> Ok, I added names and the timing data is under the threshold we wanted
(locally
> anyway, we'll have to see what the bots think about it).
> 
> Anyone have any problem with me dropping the commit=false and the [DO NOT
LAND]?

sgtm

[nednguyen, 2017-05-10 17:52:23]

On 2017/05/10 17:47:46, kouhei (on transit) wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> On 2017/05/10 17:40:48, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> > Ok, I added names and the timing data is under the threshold we wanted
> (locally
> > anyway, we'll have to see what the bots think about it).
> > 
> > Anyone have any problem with me dropping the commit=false and the [DO NOT
> LAND]?
> 
> sgtm

kouhei@: when should we drop the existing page_cycler_v2 benchmarks? (I hope not
too long, otherwise we are adding 1.5 hour to the currently overloaded perf
waterfall) 

Should we also make some announcement about this change to loading-dev?

[kouhei (in TOK), 2017-05-10 17:53:44]

On 2017/05/10 17:52:23, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2017/05/10 17:47:46, kouhei (on transit) wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > On 2017/05/10 17:40:48, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> > > Ok, I added names and the timing data is under the threshold we wanted
> > (locally
> > > anyway, we'll have to see what the bots think about it).
> > > 
> > > Anyone have any problem with me dropping the commit=false and the [DO NOT
> > LAND]?
> > 
> > sgtm
> 
> kouhei@: when should we drop the existing page_cycler_v2 benchmarks? (I hope
not
> too long, otherwise we are adding 1.5 hour to the currently overloaded perf
> waterfall) 
How about 3-7 days overlap?

> Should we also make some announcement about this change to loading-dev?
Yes. PSA FYI email will help.

Thank you so much for driving this effort :)

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-10 18:01:00]

Description was changed from

==========
[Telemetry] Create desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
commit=False
==========

to

==========
[Telemetry] Create desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
==========

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-10 23:02:14]

I'll plan to send the email out tomorrow and then assuming everything is running
well we can turn down the page cycler tests next week sometime. What would you
guys like the content of the email to contain?

Would something like this work:
Title: An update on page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks...

"Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we are working on slimming
down the number of telemetry benchmarks we run. Part of this effort will be to
merge the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks into a new loading.desktop
benchmark that closes mirrors the existing loading.mobile benchmark we have. The
new benchmark should go live soon, and if all goes well we will be turning down
the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks early next week. Let me know if there
are any questions or concerns."

[charliea (OOO until 10-5), 2017-05-11 14:20:33]

On 2017/05/10 23:02:14, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> I'll plan to send the email out tomorrow and then assuming everything is
running
> well we can turn down the page cycler tests next week sometime. What would you
> guys like the content of the email to contain?
> 
> Would something like this work:
> Title: An update on page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks...
> 
> "Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we are working on slimming
> down the number of telemetry benchmarks we run. Part of this effort will be to
> merge the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks into a new loading.desktop
> benchmark that closes mirrors the existing loading.mobile benchmark we have.
The
> new benchmark should go live soon, and if all goes well we will be turning
down
> the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks early next week. Let me know if there
> are any questions or concerns."

Randy, do you maybe want to put your draft of the email in a doc and we can make
suggestions on that doc?

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-11 15:11:03]

On 2017/05/11 14:20:33, charliea wrote:
> On 2017/05/10 23:02:14, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> > I'll plan to send the email out tomorrow and then assuming everything is
> running
> > well we can turn down the page cycler tests next week sometime. What would
you
> > guys like the content of the email to contain?
> > 
> > Would something like this work:
> > Title: An update on page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks...
> > 
> > "Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we are working on slimming
> > down the number of telemetry benchmarks we run. Part of this effort will be
to
> > merge the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks into a new loading.desktop
> > benchmark that closes mirrors the existing loading.mobile benchmark we have.
> The
> > new benchmark should go live soon, and if all goes well we will be turning
> down
> > the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks early next week. Let me know if
there
> > are any questions or concerns."
> 
> Randy, do you maybe want to put your draft of the email in a doc and we can
make
> suggestions on that doc?

https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1CquBSg-rkPqgotC27PIIcVH0XdKj...

[nednguyen, 2017-05-11 22:19:16]

On 2017/05/11 15:11:03, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> On 2017/05/11 14:20:33, charliea wrote:
> > On 2017/05/10 23:02:14, rnephew (Reviews Here) wrote:
> > > I'll plan to send the email out tomorrow and then assuming everything is
> > running
> > > well we can turn down the page cycler tests next week sometime. What would
> you
> > > guys like the content of the email to contain?
> > > 
> > > Would something like this work:
> > > Title: An update on page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks...
> > > 
> > > "Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we are working on
slimming
> > > down the number of telemetry benchmarks we run. Part of this effort will
be
> to
> > > merge the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks into a new loading.desktop
> > > benchmark that closes mirrors the existing loading.mobile benchmark we
have.
> > The
> > > new benchmark should go live soon, and if all goes well we will be turning
> > down
> > > the existing page_cycler_v2.* benchmarks early next week. Let me know if
> there
> > > are any questions or concerns."
> > 
> > Randy, do you maybe want to put your draft of the email in a doc and we can
> make
> > suggestions on that doc?
> 
>
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1CquBSg-rkPqgotC27PIIcVH0XdKj...

lgtm

Please edit the title to clarify which benchmark you're adding.

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-11 22:21:12]

Description was changed from

==========
[Telemetry] Create desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
==========

to

==========
[Telemetry] Create loading.desktop, a desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
==========

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-12 02:46:59]

The CQ bit was checked by rnephew@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 02:47:37]

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, 2017-05-12 02:51:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 02:51:32]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  cast_shell_android on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/cast_shell_a...)
  linux_android_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/linux_androi...)

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-12 03:14:30]

The CQ bit was checked by rnephew@chromium.org

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-12 03:14:30]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
nednguyen@google.com, kouhei@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002/#ps70001
(title: "rebase, regenerate sharding, and regenerate perf data")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 03:15:00]

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, 2017-05-12 04:26:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 04:26:53]

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

[rnephew (Reviews Here), 2017-05-12 05:26:46]

The CQ bit was checked by rnephew@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 05:27:14]

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, 2017-05-12 06:33:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 06:33:32]

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

[nednguyen, 2017-05-12 11:19:55]

The CQ bit was checked by nednguyen@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 11:20:13]

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, 2017-05-12 11:40:18]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 70001, "attempt_start_ts": 1494587995928120,
"parent_rev": "017e7bdf528cf64351edb9ab815c3ffc67a377bc", "commit_rev":
"bb9147ed072a94397e8d448ba7445c8f214230f3"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 11:40:28]

Description was changed from

==========
[Telemetry] Create loading.desktop, a desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346
==========

to

==========
[Telemetry] Create loading.desktop, a desktop analog for loading.mobile

This will be used to merge the page_cycler_v2 benchmarks into a single
benchmark.

BUG=713346

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2843133002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#471274}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/bb9147ed072a94397e8d448ba744...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 11:40:30]

Committed patchset #5 (id:70001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/bb9147ed072a94397e8d448ba744...