Open
Bug 534981
Opened 15 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Regression: Pages take longer to show initially than they did with Fennec Beta 5
Categories
(Core :: Widget: Gtk, defect)
Tracking
()
NEW
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
status1.9.2 | --- | final-fixed |
People
(Reporter: pavlov, Assigned: karlt)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [fennec-needs])
Attachments
(2 files)
1.15 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
458 bytes,
patch
|
karlt
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
If you do a side-by-side comparison of beta 5 versus trunk, you'll see that beta 5 shows the page content much faster than we do now. This may be a platform problem, but having trouble identifying it.
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: --- → 1.0+
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
The regression seems to be on 12/16's nightly build. Progressive rendering is still going on, but performance has gone down quite a bit. Here's a list of bugs set to resolved:fixed during that time period https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?chfieldto=2009-12-16;query_format=advanced;chfield=bug_status;chfieldfrom=2009-12-15;chfieldvalue=resolved;resolution=FIXED;product=Fennec
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
There's two bugs here: 1. The regression range found on 12/16 was for the degredation of performance of chrome during page load. 2. I found another regression range between 12/13-12/16 for the long wait time to have content shown on the screen initially during page load.
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
Bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535648 was created for the issue associated with #1 in comment #2
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
These numbers correspond with the regression we've seen for loading. I tried nytimes with the permutations {xulrunner,fennec} X {b5 version, tip version}. I am rather convinced this problem is somewhere in platform.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
This is a regression from 509278
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 418952 [details] [diff] [review] fix? I wonder if we should just remove this code entirely for all platforms?
Attachment #418952 -
Flags: review?(karlt)
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Component: General → Widget: Gtk
OS: Windows 7 → All
Product: Fennec → Core
QA Contact: general → gtk
Hardware: x86 → All
Summary: Regression: Pages take longer to show initially than they did with beta 5 → Regression: Pages take longer to show initially than they did with Fennec Beta 5
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9.2?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
<stuart> basically the problem is that compared with a build from before, there is a 5-15 second delay in initial paint Initial paint of content IIUC. What is shown before the initial paint? Previous content? Or fill content provided by the front end? Or the background of the GTK theme? Or garbage?
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 418296 [details] First mozafterpaint log >latest nytimes.com > (begin) : on location change > 655 : mozafterpaint Time from js window location change to first MozAfterPaint event? Is the unit ms? Is there only one MozAfterPaint event? Is this for invalidation of the frontend document or of the content document? > (begin) : on location change > 124 : mozafterpaint Is this another sample (of the same test)?
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 418952 [details] [diff] [review] fix? I'm OK if you'd like to land this as a workaround for now, given that we don't really understand what is happening and we won't be worse off than before the change from bug 509278. However, this is not ideal so I don't want to do this on all platforms, and I'd still like to know the answers to the above questions as they may help understand how to fix this properly. AFAIK, the only effect from Show()ing and already Show()n window is to invalidate the whole window. * This will cause unnecessary painting. * It suggests that a well-placed Invalidate() (or perhaps Update()) would be enough and possibly cause content to appear earlier than happens with the extra Show(), whose caller was not intending to invalidate (so may not have called this at the appropriate time).
Attachment #418952 -
Flags: review?(karlt) → review+
Updated•15 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9.2? → blocking1.9.2+
Whiteboard: [fennec-needs]
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
I've pushed this to 1.9.2. I think we can just leave this bug open for a better trunk fix. https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/e1eeb7719442
status1.9.2:
--- → final-fixed
Perhaps it's better to push it to trunk too, just so it doesn't get forgotten and then produce an unexplained regression when switching to a later branch?
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•15 years ago
|
||
handing this over to karl to find best solution for the regression
Assignee: nobody → karlt
Comment 14•15 years ago
|
||
Is this blocking 1.0 now, stuart?
Comment 15•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #14) > Is this blocking 1.0 now, stuart? No, and it's not blocking 1.1 either
tracking-fennec: 1.0+ → ---
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•