Closed
Bug 722270
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Nightly (12.0a1) much slower than Beta (10.0) on most V8 benchmark subtests
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla12
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox11 | --- | unaffected |
firefox12 | + | fixed |
firefox13 | --- | unaffected |
fennec | 12+ | --- |
People
(Reporter: blechri, Unassigned)
Details
(Keywords: perf)
Latest Nightly 12.0a1 (2012-01-29) is slower than Beta (10.0) on the V8 benchmark (version 6) on my Samsung Galaxy S II. Only subtests RegExp and Splay are faster in Nightly.
If I remember correctly Nightly were faster on v8 bench a couple of weeks ago, about as fast as beta is now, so I think there have been a regression but I don't have the numbers I'm afraid.
Numbers for Beta
Score:769
Richards: 1275
DeltaBlue: 1227
Crypto: 1679
RayTrace: 478
EarleyBoyer: 1057
RegExp: 194
Splay: 616
-------------------------
Numbers for Nightly:
Score: 503
Richards: 557
DeltaBlue: 361
Crypto: 669
RayTrace: 396
EarleyBoyer: 618
RegExp: 225
Splay: 1102
Updated•13 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
Let's compare XUL and Native 12.0a1 and report back
Assignee: nobody → kbrosnan
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
This looks to be a Nightly (12a1) only regression atm.
Using a Google Nexus
Native 12a1
V8 numbers between 465 - 475
XUL 12a1
V8 numbers between 445 - 455
Native 11a2 (Aurora atm, soon Beta)
V8 numbers between 835 - 750
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
I tested this on the Nightly 12.0a1 builds and found that there is a big difference between the build from 18/01 and the one from 19/01
Here are the numbers:
Nightly 12.0a1 (2012-01-18)
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f4049f65efc6
Score: 886
Richards: 1298
DeltaBlue: 1196
Crypto: 1678
RayTrace: 436
EarleyBoyer: 1166
RegExp: 184
Splay: 1755
Nightly 12.0a1 (2012-01-19)
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/58e933465c36
Score: 502
Richards: 543
DeltaBlue: 361
Crypto: 671
RayTrace: 399
EarleyBoyer: 605
RegExp: 235
Splay: 1083
Possible range:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=f4049f65efc6&tochange=58e933465c36
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
Could this be a regression from bug 718022 or bug 718134?
Updated•13 years ago
|
status-firefox13:
--- → affected
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
Sunspider also suffered a regression on Jan 18th, on mozilla-inbound:
http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html#tests=[[26,63,23],[26,63,20]]&sel=none&displayrange=30&datatype=running
The regression was caused by bug 696291: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/095649e65552
That regression seems to have been fixed by bug 696291 (different patch): https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0aacfba4caab
We don't run V8 on mobile talos, but you might be able to confirm using a tinderbox build from mozilla-inbound, if it still exists:
http://stage.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mobile/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-inbound-android/1326855029/
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) from comment #5)
> We don't run V8 on mobile talos, but you might be able to confirm using a
> tinderbox build from mozilla-inbound, if it still exists:
> http://stage.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mobile/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-
> inbound-android/1326855029/
Confirm that this build regressed V8
I am CC'ing some JS devs to see if they have thoughts on why V8 was affected, and why it was not "fixed" by the latest patch landing from bug 696291.
Updated•13 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → general
tracking-fennec: ? → 11+
tracking-firefox11:
--- → ?
Component: General → JavaScript Engine
Product: Fennec Native → Core
QA Contact: general → general
Updated•13 years ago
|
Just tried again with latest Nightly and it's fast again. Nice.
Score: 836
Richards: 1179
DeltaBlue: 1220
Crypto: 1432
RayTrace: 447
EarleyBoyer: 1087
RegExp: 201
Splay: 1417
Comment 8•13 years ago
|
||
Aaron - can you help us find a regression/degression range so that we can uplift the latest fix on FF13 or come up with a low risk fix?
Keywords: qawanted,
regressionwindow-wanted
Comment 9•13 years ago
|
||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Keywords: regressionwindow-wanted
Comment 10•13 years ago
|
||
Can we close it as WFM based on comment 7?
Comment 11•13 years ago
|
||
This was fixed by
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/0aacfba4caab
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Updated•13 years ago
|
Updated•13 years ago
|
Resolution: WORKSFORME → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla12
Version: Trunk → 12 Branch
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•