Closed
Bug 1100340
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
e10s - Performance is significantly slower on 32bit Linux machines
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: Tracking, defect)
Tracking
(e10s+)
RESOLVED
INCOMPLETE
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
e10s | + | --- |
People
(Reporter: tech4pwd, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: perf, steps-wanted, testcase-wanted)
Attachments
(1 file)
1004.10 KB,
application/zip
|
Details |
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0 Build ID: 20141115210040 Steps to reproduce: Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 bit machines.
Reporter | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → Core
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0) > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 > Firefox/36.0 > Build ID: 20141115210040 > > Steps to reproduce: > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 > bit machines. Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines?
Flags: needinfo?(pwd.mozilla)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Updated•9 years ago
|
tracking-e10s:
--- → ?
Summary: Performance is significantly slower on 32bit Linux machines → e10s - Performance is significantly slower on 32bit Linux machines
Here's the discussion: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2779793&p=13879859
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1) > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0) > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 > > Firefox/36.0 > > Build ID: 20141115210040 > > > > Steps to reproduce: > > > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to > > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux > > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some > > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 > > bit machines. > > Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same > machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the > 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines? I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required.
Flags: needinfo?(pwd.mozilla)
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #3) > (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1) > > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0) > > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 > > > Firefox/36.0 > > > Build ID: 20141115210040 > > > > > > Steps to reproduce: > > > > > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to > > > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux > > > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some > > > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 > > > bit machines. > > > > Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same > > machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the > > 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines? > > I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's > a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s > enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required. Running any kind of benchmark about web performance would be helpful. If there are things that stand out, using the gecko profiler ( https://github.com/bgirard/Gecko-Profiler-Addon ) may help.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #4) > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #3) > > (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1) > > > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0) > > > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 > > > > Firefox/36.0 > > > > Build ID: 20141115210040 > > > > > > > > Steps to reproduce: > > > > > > > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to > > > > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux > > > > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some > > > > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 > > > > bit machines. > > > > > > Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same > > > machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the > > > 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines? > > > > I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's > > a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s > > enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required. > > Running any kind of benchmark about web performance would be helpful. If > there are things that stand out, using the gecko profiler ( > https://github.com/bgirard/Gecko-Profiler-Addon ) may help. Hopefully these help.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
So I was hoping much of this would be down to perception as a result of bug 1106936 but it turns out that's not the case. Rendering is still far far slower than with e10s disables (i.e. a blank white screen is displayed). Still getting a giant spinner on dormant tabs. On opening Firefox, it still takes a very long time to load app tabs. Some of the performance issues are best showcased when comparing opening a bookmarks folder (say 8 tabs).
I haven't done any profiling yet,just some basic tests enabling OMTC along with e10s in Linux 64bit, and there is detectable hit in performance here too : in other words, as far as I can see e10s is significantly slower on Linux 64bit as well.
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
I believe bug 1066531 could significantly help in regards to this issue.
Comment 9•8 years ago
|
||
Lots of changes in the last yea, still see this?
Flags: needinfo?(pwd.mozilla)
Comment hidden (off-topic) |
Comment hidden (off-topic) |
Updated•8 years ago
|
Component: Untriaged → Tracking
QA Contact: chofmann
Comment 12•8 years ago
|
||
Looking at these profiles, a ton of time is being spent in AdBlock and NoScript over the shims. I know that both of these add-ons have gotten a lot better at avoiding shims with their latest updates. Reporter, are you still seeing this slowdown?
Comment 13•8 years ago
|
||
Going to close this out until we get profiles showing slowdowns in core code.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
Reporter | ||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(pwd.mozilla)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•