Electrolysis/Release Criteria/Scrolling: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(corrections in data) |
(kats to own Scrolling) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
RASCI: | RASCI: | ||
* Responsible: | * Responsible: kats | ||
* Accountable: RyanVM | * Accountable: RyanVM | ||
* Supporting: | * Supporting: |
Revision as of 20:28, 25 February 2016
Scrolling responsiveness must not regress when we turn on e10s.
RASCI:
- Responsible: kats
- Accountable: RyanVM
- Supporting:
- Consulted: release management, jmaher
- Informed: cpeterson, elan
Criteria:
FX_REFRESH_DRIVER_SYNC_SCROLL_FRAME_DELAY_MS
- "e10s appears to be much better here"
- from billm: Analysis was done in bug 1228147 but this was not a valid dataset because it considers users from outside the experiment.
talos tp5o_scroll
- e10s comparison validated: kats
- Current e10s diff: worse except linux
- Linux: 17% better
- All Windows and OS X: 45-110% worse
- bug 1179735 - tp5o_scroll regression on windows compared to non-e10s
- Note: reflects synchronous scroll only, so meaningless where APZ kicks in. Currently APZ handles only mouse wheel, so the test currently reflects autoscroll/arrows/page-up-down/etc.
talos tscrollx
- e10s comparison validated: kats
- Current e10s diff: mixed
- Linux: 30% better
- OS X: 17% better
- Windows 8: 7% better
- Windows 7: 7% worse
- Windows XP: 50% worse
- bug 1249976 - tscrollx regressed 6% with e10s on December 25th
- bug 1174772 - 2.9% win7 tscrollx regression on e10s only
- Note: reflects synchronous scroll only, so meaningless where APZ kicks in. Currently APZ handles only mouse wheel, so the test currently reflects autoscroll/arrows/page-up-down/etc.