850156 - BaselineCompiler: Separate ion/baseline memory reporters for JIT code

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[Jan de Mooij [:jandem]]

Right now we use IonCode so baseline code is reported under ion-code. njn suggested using different reporters for baseline and Ion code, and I agree that would be useful.

Comment 1

[Jan de Mooij [:jandem]]

Attachment: Patch

Adds two new memory reporters: code/other and code/baseline (and updates the other reporters so that they are in a "code" subtree). code/other is used for trampolines and VM wrappers. These will be used by baseline too so it's wrong to report them under either code/ion or code/baseline.

Comment 2

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

Comment on attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Review of attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: js/src/assembler/jit/ExecutableAllocator.cpp
@@ +49,5 @@
> +    *ion      = 0;
> +    *baseline = 0;
> +    *regexp   = 0;
> +    *other    = 0;
> +    *unused   = 0;

Six values is enough that this would benefit from getting its own struct, like ObjectsExtraSizes and TypeInferenceSizes.  Feel free to do that if you want, but I won't insist.

::: js/xpconnect/src/XPCJSRuntime.cpp
@@ +1881,5 @@
>  
> +    RREPORT_BYTES(rtPath + NS_LITERAL_CSTRING("runtime/code/baseline"),
> +                  nsIMemoryReporter::KIND_NONHEAP, rtStats.runtime.baselineCode,
> +                  "Memory used by the Baseline JIT to hold the runtime's "
> +                  "generated code.");

You can remove "the runtime's " here and in the other cases.

Comment 3

[David Anderson [:dvander] - inactive, e-mail if emergency]

Comment on attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Review of attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why OTHER_CODE instead of ION_CODE?

Comment 4

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

Comment on attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Review of attachment 723905 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My r+ was overwritten, apparently.

Comment 5

[Jan de Mooij [:jandem]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/40b366dc7fad

(In reply to David Anderson [:dvander] from comment #3)
> Why OTHER_CODE instead of ION_CODE?

VM wrappers etc are used by both Ion and baseline, so I think it's clearer to report them under OTHER instead of ION.

Comment 6

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

ION_OR_BASELINE_CODE, maybe?

Comment 7

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/40b366dc7fad