Closed
Bug 1380406
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
3.86 - 8.23% Explicit Memory / Heap Unclassified / JS / Resident Memory (windows10-64-vm, windows7-32-vm) regression on push a625a2e9b3333a8e76982ea65f077cfded6ac224 (Sat Jul 8 2017)
Categories
(WebExtensions :: General, defect, P1)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: jmaher, Assigned: kmag)
References
Details
(Keywords: perf, regression)
We have detected an awsy regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?changeset=a625a2e9b3333a8e76982ea65f077cfded6ac224 As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 8% JS summary windows7-32-vm opt 90,584,556.60 -> 98,040,740.43 8% Heap Unclassified summary windows7-32-vm opt 40,562,028.99 -> 43,878,926.75 7% Explicit Memory summary windows7-32-vm opt 239,786,528.45 -> 257,272,895.42 7% JS summary windows10-64-vm opt 122,901,159.70 -> 131,275,579.21 6% Heap Unclassified summary windows10-64-vm opt 46,073,281.26 -> 49,004,416.22 6% Explicit Memory summary windows10-64-vm opt 303,093,133.14 -> 321,915,699.74 5% Resident Memory summary windows7-32-vm opt 298,107,050.72 -> 313,012,301.59 4% Resident Memory summary windows10-64-vm opt 467,925,691.15 -> 485,969,132.08 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=7780 On the page above you can see an alert for each affected platform as well as a link to a graph showing the history of scores for this test. There is also a link to a treeherder page showing the jobs in a pushlog format. To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/AWSY
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
:kmag, I know I mentioned in bug 1357486 that you had some perf wins, but there are some memory regressions- are these expected?
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
If these numbers are across all processes, then yes, this is expected. The addition of an extra content process to host WebExtension code should cause an increase in memory consumption.
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
I assume that is the case, :erahm, does AWSY collect memory from all processes, even new ones that?
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Component: Untriaged → WebExtensions: General
Product: Firefox → Toolkit
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → kmaglione+bmo
Priority: -- → P1
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Joel Maher ( :jmaher) (UTC-8) from comment #3) > I assume that is the case, :erahm, does AWSY collect memory from all > processes, even new ones that? Yeah if it's just a content process. The GPU process had to opt-in, I'm not 100% sure about the web extension process, but I think it's just another content process.
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Eric Rahm [:erahm] (please no mozreview requests) from comment #4) > (In reply to Joel Maher ( :jmaher) (UTC-8) from comment #3) > > I assume that is the case, :erahm, does AWSY collect memory from all > > processes, even new ones that? > > Yeah if it's just a content process. The GPU process had to opt-in, I'm not > 100% sure about the web extension process, but I think it's just another > content process. For the most part, yes, it's a normal content process. It has a different remoteType, but the actual process type is PROCESS_TYPE_CONTENT.
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kris Maglione [:kmag] from comment #2) > If these numbers are across all processes, then yes, this is expected. The > addition of an extra content process to host WebExtension code should cause > an increase in memory consumption. Then I will mark this bug as WONTFIX, if you all agree.
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Yes, agreed. We still need to work on decreasing our content process memory overhead, but adding a new content process is always going to cause some significant memory overhead. And running extensions in a separate process is an important part of our Quantum release criteria, so that's the trade-off we're going to have to make for now.
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(erahm)
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Toolkit → WebExtensions
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•