If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

Awful performance with mail composer (possibily excessive spell checking)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 324521

Status

()

Core
Spelling checker
RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 324521
11 years ago
11 years ago

People

(Reporter: Darryl Miles, Assigned: Scott MacGregor)

Tracking

({perf})

Trunk
x86
Linux
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

11 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060806 SeaMonkey/1.0.4
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060806 SeaMonkey/1.0.4

My box is a dual-cpu 3.2GHz P4 and I'm having terrible performace problems with SeaMonkey's mail composer.  I believe the problems are related to the spell checker functionality, this is because when running SM under gdb and stopping execution, the backtrace indicates Spellchecking is the cause.


During the entire time of the performance problem the Browser and Mail windows stop responding and will not redraw.  The performance problem lasts for over 10 seconds and maybe upto serval minutes.

The performance time maybe dependant upon the number of lines in length of the mail message.


Other causes of the problem are when entering email addresses To: Cc:, Bcc, into the composer.  If I type in an address, then wait a second, the address turns red coloured (from black).  If I now press 'return'.  I experience huge delays, maybe 40 to 60 seconds each time.  If I put multiple addresses on the same line with commas inbetween the delay feels like it lasts the same amount of time for each address.

Why is the spell checking kicking in, when I am editing the message header and addressing details and not the message body or subject line ?


I will attach some backtraces shortly and I've also got jprof to work but the results aren't what I'm expecting to see maybe they are of more help to you.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Send yourself a 500 line plain text email
2. Have at least two accounts setup, so your From: address 
3. On the 500 line message click 'Forward' function
4. Now simply change the From: address, which is the top box in the mail composer
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Summary: Performance → Awful performance with mail composer (possibily excessive spell checking)
(Reporter)

Comment 1

11 years ago
Created attachment 234467 [details]
JProf output

This is the JPROF output from following the Step 1 thru 4 listed above, this is the profile graph from simply changing the From: drop down from my default address to another email address.
(Reporter)

Comment 2

11 years ago
Created attachment 234469 [details]
GDB Backtrace

Here is a consistant gdb backtrace after halting seamonkey during the UI freeze.  The mozInlineSpellChecker:: class is consistantly the performance problem in all the other cases as well.

The bad performance cases are:

* When changing the From: drop down box.
* When entering To:, Cc:, Bcc: addresses by pressing the Return key (as opposed to the down arrow, which does not have any performance problem and allow multiple address input without UI freezes).
* When cutting and pasting large amount of text into the body of the msg
(Reporter)

Comment 3

11 years ago
FYI The JProf attachment is truncated, I chopped 75Kb out of it to make it fit the bugzilla 300Kb limit.
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Keywords: perf
(Reporter)

Comment 4

11 years ago
Ignore my JPROF attachment, it maybe bogus on 64bit linux as jprof is broken,  see bug #349166.

Comment 5

11 years ago
Could you test this in a recent branch build? Brett Wilson has made significant improvements to the spell checker with respect to performance.
(Reporter)

Comment 6

11 years ago
What CVS tag do I checkout for SEAMONKEY ?  I can only see SEAMONKEY_1_0_4_MINIBRANCH listed are those changes released to that branch ?

I am currently at SEAMONKEY_1_0_4_RELEASE and have only built SM based on release versions from CVS before.

Comment 7

11 years ago
You'll want to check out client.mk from the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH and use it to checkout MOZ_CO_PROJECT=suite. See the build docs. [0] for more info. 

Or, you could just grab a branch build produced by tinderbox [1].

[0] http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla_Source_Code_Via_CVS#Checking_Out_a_New_Source_Tree
[1] http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/latest-mozilla1.8/
(Reporter)

Comment 8

11 years ago
Problems with the build of MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH, the pango undefined symbol build error is a long standing problem I've seen with MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH many months ago.

Opened Bug #349393 about it.
(Reporter)

Comment 9

11 years ago
Okay I have tested with MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH and indeed the problem has gone away.  There is no notable problem with performance.

There were however 2 assertions, which I'm about to search, file and/or comment seperatly.

Comment 10

11 years ago
OK. Thank you very much for testing this on the 1.8 branch to see if it was fixed, Darryl. I'm going to dupe this to bug 324521 since it has similar steps to reproduce.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 324521 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.