uniqlo.com page load is 2x slower in GeckoView than WebView
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect, P1)
Tracking
()
| Performance Impact | high |
People
(Reporter: cpeterson, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: perf:pageload)
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
I collected two profiles on my Sony Xperia Z3C.
Tracking protection off: https://perfht.ml/2Ubstn6
Tracking protection on: https://perfht.ml/2U3y6Ua
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
I don't fully understand comment 10 -- do we know for sure if our earlier testing had consistent tracking-protection behavior, when comparing WebView vs. GeckoView settings here?
(Separate data point: Andrew Creskey tested this bug with Focus+GeckoView vs. Chrome today, and says Chrome loads the page noticeably faster.)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 14•7 years ago
|
||
Moving to Core::Layout for now, since a decent chunk of the time in comment 12's profiles seems to be in layout & style flushes.
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
The bigger issue to me is that the total number of resources accessed when visiting the website varied. I would expect that such a variance would result in a different number of items blocked. This seems like something that would benefit from capturing one load and replaying. That would give us a consistent baseline to measure.
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Markus, was that an --enable-release build? (That is, was Rust compiled with -C opt-level=1 (opt), or -C opt-level=2 (release)).
I see a few symbols in that profile that I would expect rustc to inline.
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
Oops! I don't think it was. Thanks for catching that!
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
Profiles with an --enable-release build:
Tracking protection off: http://bit.ly/2R9LMLw
Tracking protection on: http://bit.ly/2R9LPXI
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
In Markus's "Tracking protection on" profile in comment 19, it looks like pageload takes ~8 seconds, which was the "target" ("reference measurement") in comment 0.
(RE "pageload", I'm just going off of the screenshots track - the page looks visually complete at the 8 second mark).
So, I wonder if there's anything left to do here? (We've got a helper bug 1522196 that may get us ~100-200ms but that's only a small chunk of the overall load time -- but maybe we're already as fast as anybody in a similar tracking-protection-enabled scenario?)
Comment 21•7 years ago
•
|
||
In other words, perhaps this is WORKSFORME, unless/until we get some more actionable measurements demonstrating that GeckoView is slower than WebView (with tracking protection blocking the same rough resources)?
Right now this doesn't feel actionable & it's not clear there's much to be done here.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 22•7 years ago
|
||
Let's close this bug as WORKSFORME. On my Moto G5, Chrome and Focus+WebView load uniqlo.com in about 2 seconds. Fennec, Focus+GeckoView, and the Reference Browser load uniqlo.com in about 3 seconds. While technically 50% slower, not a big difference.
Updated•4 years ago
|
Description
•