Bug 1777198 Comment 4 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
So https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=383593877&repo=try&lineNumber=8731-8740 suggests me two things:
- When we have a mixed stack JS/C++ like for AsyncShutdown, we seem to not reset the running timers at each language boundary, resulting in longer JS execution times
- I should probably find a way to exclude system calls. I tried XPCJSContext::IsSystemCaller but that seems to moot also my test case. Not sure if it is just a problem of the testcase, though.
Revision 1 by
on 
So https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=383593877&repo=try&lineNumber=8731-8740 suggests me two things:
- When we have a mixed stack JS/C++ like for AsyncShutdown, we seem to not reset the running timers at each language boundary, resulting in longer JS execution times
- I should probably find a way to exclude system calls. I tried `XPCJSContext::IsSystemCaller` but that seems to moot also my test case. Not sure if it is just a problem of the testcase, though.
Revision 2 by
on 
So https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=383593877&repo=try&lineNumber=8731-8740 suggests me two things:
- When we have a mixed stack JS/C++ like for AsyncShutdown, we seem to not reset the running timers at each language boundary, resulting in longer JS execution times (which is probably fine, a more interesting boundary might be if we spin the event loop in between)
- I should probably find a way to exclude system calls. I tried `XPCJSContext::IsSystemCaller` but that seems to moot also my test case. Not sure if it is just a problem of the testcase, though.
Revision 3 by
on 
So https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=383593877&repo=try&lineNumber=8731-8740 suggests me two things:
- When we have a mixed stack JS/C++ like for `AsyncShutdown`, we seem to not reset the running timers at each language boundary, resulting in longer JS execution times (which is probably fine, a more interesting boundary might be if we spin the event loop in between)
- I should probably find a way to exclude system calls. I tried `XPCJSContext::IsSystemCaller` but that seems to moot also my test case. Not sure if it is just a problem of the testcase, though.

Back to Bug 1777198 Comment 4