Closed
Bug 480212
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
nsUpdateService::_start takes 500ms
Categories
(Toolkit :: Application Update, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 311965
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
fennec | 1.0- | --- |
People
(Reporter: vlad, Assigned: crowderbt)
References
Details
On CE6, calling _start (in response to profile-after-change) takes 500ms even when there are no updates or anything else pending. It really shouldn't take even 1/10th that long in that case...
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0?
Flags: blocking1.9.2?
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
Note that this is maybe sorta related to bug 311965, but compiling nsUpdateService.js is quite fast; it's executing _start that takes all the time.
Updated•16 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: --- → ?
Updated•16 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: ? → 1.0a2-wm+
Updated•16 years ago
|
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0? → wanted-fennec1.0+
Updated•16 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → crowder
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0+
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
taras: Have you profiled this at all?
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2)
> taras: Have you profiled this at all?
yes and after discussions with Mossop we filed 471219, but nobody has taken that up yet. It should save us a fair bit of time.
Updated•16 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: 1.0a2-wm+ → 1.0b1-wm+
Updated•16 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: 1.0b1-wm+ → 1.0-
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0+
![]() |
||
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
Vlad, could you check how long this is taking now? Taras' logs on Maemo show the following changes for nsUpdateService.js.
from 7/21
nsUpdateService.js : 109+2+28+36+25 = 200ms
from 10/2
nsUpdateService.js : 138+2+6+9+33 = 188ms
from 10/8 with patch from Bug 512651 which landed on trunk today
nsUpdateService.js : 78+2+7+2+30 = 119
So, it looks like there have been steady improvements and the _start doesn't take hardly any time for me on WinCE though that is without the js_Execute time.
Also, I'd like to dupe this over to Bug 311965 for the remaining work unless you'd prefer not to.
![]() |
||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•