Closed Bug 1082268 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago
[meta] Music app launch latency is worse compared to Android on quad core 1 GB device
We tried with fix from bug 1069452 and we are still seeing 1406ms for Music app launch latency on msm8226(4 cores and 1GB RAM) with following gaia/gecko in v2.1. https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/lf/b2g/mozilla/gaia/commit/?h=mozilla/v2.1&id=9861c61ec302fb0316c753a2e1c0f592180515fd https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/lf/b2g/mozilla/gecko/commit/?h=mozilla/v2.1&id=81d98fe40d10d5a8a48664aa60913491db215a4f I also saw that Mozilla is also hitting 1237ms for Music launch latency in https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/QA/2014-10-02_Performance_Acceptance#Music Please note that we didn't see any significant gain in launch latency when we moved from dual core(msm8610) to four core(msm8226). Please also look into bug 1074783 comment 19 and bug 1082262 But Android is showing 829ms for music app launch latency on same platform. We need to improve Music app launch latency to match with Android on same platform
6 years ago
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.2?
6 years ago
(In reply to Tapas[:tkundu on #b2g/gaia/memshrink/gfx] (always NI me) from comment #0) > I also saw that Mozilla is also hitting 1237ms for Music launch latency in > https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/QA/2014-10-02_Performance_Acceptance#Music Tapas, The number you quote here (and elsewhere in similar bugs referencing the acceptance study) is the p95 number--that is, the 95th percentile load time (95% of all loads faster than this). The median load time for music as determined in this study is 1093 ms. Note also that those results were bimodal, due to a measurement issue in the test harness. A later acceptance study on Oct 20's nightly build (and with harness fixed) showed a median load time of 845 ms. That's almost comparable to Android's. https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/QA/2014-10-20_Performance_Acceptance#Music Since there is a large discrepancy in the numbers, it might be worth comparing test parameters, particularly how many songs you're loading and when you start/stop the clock. Those are all documented for what we do in the overview/methodology sections of the studies.
Being tracked as part of multi-core performance improvements: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10935
blocking-b2g: 2.2? → ---
Summary: Music app launch latency is worse compared to Android on quad core 1 GB device → [meta] Music app launch latency is worse compared to Android on quad core 1 GB device
Please remove 2.2+
As discussion with Kevin and Ken, this is in v2.2 feature scope. Marked this for scope tracking.
This should not be, because this bug would over the scope of v2.2. only bugs opened for this bugs should be in the scope.
Any recommendation on the gaia side? Our understanding is that Thinker's team is working on gecko level changes that may improve the app start-up time on quad core. Thinker: Do we have launch latency results for music with the gecko optimizations? Thanks Hema
QA team has a report for Nexus 5.
Flags: needinfo?(tlee) → needinfo?(whsu)
Test result. FYI. - https://docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hk9kWld3ZdzFxG3vS5au0sepm7eLv2_7BS2Kn3N8Z-A/edit#gid=9028135 Music cold launch time (Visually complete): @ Workload: 20 songs (make reference-workload-light) - Flame 2.1 (Dual-Core & 1024 MB): 1022.1 ms - Flame 2.1 (Single-Core & 319 MB): 1968.8 ms - Nexus 2.2 (Quad-Core & 2048 MB): 732.8 ms
As all sub cases are resolved, marked as feature-b2g:2.2+
blocking-b2g: 2.2? → ---
feature-b2g: --- → 2.2+
Coding effort completed. Require verification.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
CAF (Inder) expressed a preference to track performance meta bugs like these instead of their more granular blockers since, in their opinion, the individual blockers tend to change and don't always reflect a direct connection to the primary performance issue. CAF will track and update (close) these bugs when the reported performance issue is resolved.
Cold launch time (Visually Loaded) on Flame: Datazilla Master v2.2 v2.1 Camera 1375 1383 1634 Clock 1266 1164 1041 Contacts 860 806 883 FM Radio 627 554 542 Gallery 1000 940 969 Messages 1392 1255 1262 Music 1312 1164 929 Phone 615 554 567 Settings 2537 2573 2586 Video 1054 1022 964
From my test the regression between 2.1 and 2.2 is cause by Gecko. Music from gaia 2.2 running on Gecko 2.1 has a similar performance as 2.1
Should we expect that a patch for bug 1138620 will improve startup time for the Music app, or does that patch only help with apps that use the RIL or geolocation?
All apps improve by ~2 seconds. We've already got a temporary fix for that bug over here though, and I don't think the Mozilla Flame builds were ever affected.
Bobby: can you tell us where the numbers in comment #12 come from? I can't find them in datazilla myself.
(In reply to David Flanagan [:djf] from comment #16) > Bobby: can you tell us where the numbers in comment #12 come from? I can't > find them in datazilla myself. The numbers of Comment 12 came from Datazilla. Raptor shows similar numbers as well.  Datazilla: http://goo.gl/86sLQX  Raptor: http://goo.gl/cLR5wc
Thanks. Looks like the 2.2 music number is from 3/31. The corresponding 2.1 number from the same date is 949 in Datazilla, not 929. Still, it is a big regression. Also, for gallery, comment #12 shows that gallery is faster in 2.2 than in 2.1. But that is not what I measure, and I don't see that 940ms number anywhere in datazilla.
This bug was filed to compare FirefoxOS to Android, but we've spent a lot of time discussing the FirefoxOS v2.1 vs v2.2 performance regression here. I've now filed bug 1153985 for that specific 2.1 to 2.2 regression.
Last update as followings, and Raptor dashboard . Mark worksforme per no longer 2.2 blocker. Please follow bug 1194650 in v2.5. ------------------------- appName master v2.2 -------- ------ ---- Messages 1700 986 Video 1127 1020 Settings 2682 2437 FM Radio 707 496 Gallery 1076 1046 Music 1085 956 E-Mail 463 1973 Contacts 1118 717 Clock 1202 1206 Calendar 1476 1342 Camera 1668 1297  http://raptor.mozilla.org/#/dashboard/file/raptor.json
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.