Closed Bug 7251 Opened 26 years ago Closed 14 years ago

improve startup performance tracking bug

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: Tracking, defect, P3)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 447581
Future

People

(Reporter: chofmann, Unassigned, NeedInfo)

References

(Depends on 3 open bugs)

Details

(Keywords: meta, perf, topperf)

Attachments

(5 files)

all the areas that need to be fixed to make us start fast...
Depends on: 7185, 7187, 7188, 7189, 7190
Blocks: 7229
Whiteboard: [Perf]
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Depends on: 7916
Blocks: 8700
Blocks: 8702
No longer blocks: 8700
No longer blocks: 8702
Depends on: 8700, 8702
Depends on: 8724
Depends on: 8745
Blocks: 9147
No longer blocks: 7229
Depends on: 7249
Depends on: 9011
Depends on: 5085
Depends on: 5952
Depends on: 3884
Depends on: 4901
No longer depends on: 8700
Depends on: 12296
No longer depends on: 7249
removing dependency on 7249, since we do this for the optimized builds already. the bug is still open to get it working for developer builds.
Depends on: 13129
Depends on: 13635
Depends on: 13555
Depends on: 13747
Depends on: 14824
Keywords: perf
Bulk add of "perf" to new keyword field. This will replace the [PERF] we were using in the Status Summary field.
*** Bug 26224 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Adding beta1 to keyword list Here's the latest test data for start time after a system reboot. 4.71 SM Win98200MHz, Pentium Pro 2:02s 11:23s 64MB RAM Mac OS 8.5 2:89s 13:63s 266MHz, PowerPC G3, 64MB RAM Linux RedHat 6.0, 5:11s 27:34s 166MHz, Pentium, 80MBRAM For beta 1 we need to be within 2x 4.71
Keywords: beta1
-> jevering
Assignee: chofmann → jevering
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Putting on PDT+ radar for beta1.
Whiteboard: [Perf] → [PDT+]
Removed PDT+ to get a re-eval so that this doesn't show in stats. I'd rather see the actual bugs rated as PDT+, then see this one in addition to all the others (at present, there is one other :-/ ).
Whiteboard: [PDT+]
Whiteboard: [PDT-]
Adding 28964
Depends on: 28964
Depends on: 28911
Adding 28911
No longer depends on: 28911
Adding 26512
Depends on: 26512
Depends on: 28911
Depends on: 29063
Depends on: 29249
Depends on: 29363
Depends on: 29685
Depends on: 29725
Depends on: 30201
Depends on: 29728
Depends on: 30365
Taking over this bug.
Assignee: jevering → dp
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → M30
Depends on: 27510
Target Milestone: M30 → Future
Updating QA Contact.
QA Contact: leger → paw
*** Bug 50746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Using Quantify and the latest build, it appears that we spend 40% of our boot time in malloc, allocating 180,000+ blocks.
Depends on: 26516
Depends on: 18277
Depends on: 46801
Depends on: 46800
Keywords: beta1nsbeta1
dp no longer at netscape. assigning to chofmann so this is on someone's radar
Assignee: dp → chofmann
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
maybe selmers that better owner/watcher for this tracking bug from an application point of view. kandrot, do you know if there is a bug that specifically talks about all this memory allocation going on at startup? That is the part memory and performance team might be interested in. also, do we know if the memory allocation that is going on rougly mirrors the code size of the .dll's or is there any sore thumbs that might stand out as allocating more than they need to or should at startup? sounds like evaughn's late loading ideas might have a big impact on the overall startup time if we can shave off lots of code that really is not used a large pct. of the time. waterson, did you see this. holy heck. 40% of startup time just to cram the monkey into memory... whoa!
another good piece of data to get would be to figure out of the 40% of seamonkey start time in malloc ratio also holds true in gtkembed and winembed.
->McAfee, CC Vishy
Assignee: chofmann → mcafee
OS: Windows 95 → All
Hardware: PC → All
Whiteboard: [PDT-]
Adding bug 67618 (mallocs, ~40%) and bug 64146 (making charset menu takes ~5%).
Depends on: 64146, 67618
Depends on: 69009
No longer depends on: 69009
Blocks: 71066
added more startup bugs
No longer blocks: 71066
Depends on: 8578, 9012, 26455, 42087, 49145, 49786
Blocks: 71066
Depends on: 14889
Depends on: 68045
No longer depends on: 3884, 4901, 5952, 7185, 7187, 7188, 7189, 7190, 7916, 8724, 8745, 9011, 12296, 13129, 13555, 13635, 13747, 14824, 18277, 26512, 28964, 29363, 29685, 29728, 30201, 30365, 46801
Depends on: 71447
No longer depends on: 14889, 26516, 68045
Depends on: 71781
Depends on: 71780
No longer depends on: 8702
Depends on: 8702
Depends on: 71861
over to cathleen
Assignee: mcafee → cathleen
Depends on: 71874
No longer depends on: 8578, 8702, 28911, 29249, 29725, 42087, 46800, 67618
No longer depends on: 71447
No longer depends on: 29063
No longer depends on: 71874
Depends on: 69140
Depends on: 26516
Depends on: 12896
Depends on: 72551
Depends on: 63000
Keywords: topperf
Depends on: 35816
No longer depends on: 26516
No longer depends on: 9012, 26455
Depends on: 65266
Depends on: 62164
Depends on: 68074
Depends on: 76705
Depends on: 26291
No longer depends on: 12896
No longer depends on: 63000
No longer depends on: 9012
Depends on: 79521
Depends on: 63246
Depends on: 79580
Depends on: 78695
Adding myself.
Depends on: 65845
Depends on: 46775
Depends on: 77757
Target Milestone: Future → ---
Depends on: 85770
Depends on: 86929
Adding bug 68045 ("precompile chrome JS and load it incrementally"), which is really "precompile all XUL/XBL/JS/CSS that costs a lot more to parse than to fast-load from a pre-compiled form". /be
Depends on: 68045
Depends on: 91804
Depends on: 67618
Depends on: 88583
Depends on: 91241
Depends on: 92477, 92478, 92479, 92480
Blocks: 10770
No longer blocks: 9147, 71066
Keywords: nsbeta1, perf, topperfhelpwanted
QA Contact: paw → sujay
Summary: improve startup performance tracking bug → TRACKING: mouse event handling in tables
ARGH! Someone who got CC'd on the last update to this please re-add all the dependencies! Mozilla (or bugzilla?) apparently emptied the dependency field, and when I added one it erased all the old ones. Please add 91231 when you fix this. Sorry; I should have been more paranoid when I noticed an empty text field there.
Hmmmm. I just noted that a bunch of the other fields got wierded out as well. (Summary should be "improve startup performance tracking bug"). Sounds like a Bugzilla bug....
Restoring the fields as they were. Adding 91231 as requested.
Keywords: helpwantednsbeta1, perf, topperf
QA Contact: sujay → paw
Summary: TRACKING: mouse event handling in tables → improve startup performance tracking bug
Blocks: 9147, 71066
No longer blocks: 10770
sorry for the spam, the field changes fooled me at a sleepy moment...
Now be good this time, bugzilla...
Depends on: 90545, 92256
Mysteriously disappearing values in fields are usually bugs in Mozilla's form handling. Randell, were you using Mozilla to update the bug, and if so what build? Next time you notice this you should see if it happens with Netscape 4.x or another browser. If so, file a bug against Bugzilla; otherwise file one against Browser->HTML Form Controls or Browser->Form Submission (depending on whether you notice the problem before or after the form gets submitted) and notify staff@mozilla.org immediately so we can block that Mozilla build to prevent corruption of the Bugzilla database.
Usually I would blame Mozilla for this sort of thing ... BUT ... I noticed that when the dependencies were readded the notifications got sent out merged with the original notifications when the dep got removed. AIUI when this happens its a Bugzilla bug, and we're not sure why it happens. If that's the case, it's likely that the whole thing might be a Bugzilla bug.
I was using mozilla; a daily from just before 0.9.3. Note however that it replaced the subject line with the subject line from the first bug in my query list - it would be tough for mozilla to do that, since I never even looked at that bug (other then it being an entry in the query results). I still think it's bugzilla.
Depends on: 94199
No longer depends on: 91804
Some analysis on the above. I'm going to treat main() as the root for the relevant number of stack traces (that's 1858, as opposed to 1911). Since this is a sampling profiler, it should yield good results with respect to time spent in I/O. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have picked up symbols from NSPR (even though I built with seawood's patch for bug 88045). - Only 2% of the stack traces (37/1911) fell in NS_InitXPCOM(). Of that, 16 (or less than 1%) were spent in nsComponentManagerImpl::PlatformPrePopulateRegistry(). So, we seem to spend very little time reading in the registry. About 1/2% of the time was spent reading the XPTI files. So it appears that there is little to gain from optimizing XPCOM initialization code. - About 8% of the time was spent in nsAppShellService::CreateHiddenWindow() (158 stacks). From here, 134 stacks (or 7% overall) was spent in nsAppShellService::GetHiddenWindowAndJSContext(). This winds up in what appears to be a CreateInstance() call. (See below.) - 329 stacks, or 17% of the time, was spent in CreateInstance(). The biggest offenders are: - nsNSSComponentConstructor(), which accounts for 5.5% (103 stacks). - nsChromeRegistryConstructor(), which accounts for 2% (39 stacks). - nsAutoConfigConstructor(), which accounts for 1.6% (30 stacks). - nsPrefServiceConstructor(), which accounts for 1.6% (29 stacks). - NS_NewCharsetMenu(), which accounts for 1% (19 stacks). - Construct_nsIScriptSecurityManager(), which accounts for 0.5% (10 stacks). Others to note (that take less than 0.5%, but still show up with several stacks) are: - nsHTTPHandler::Create() - nsProfileConstructor() - CreateXULDocument() - NS_NewLocalStore() - InternetSearchDataSourceConstructor() - nsBookmarksServiceConstructor() - nsCookieHTTPNotifyConstructor() All of which read files from the disk. - We spend 1.7% of the time in nsStaticComponentLoader::GetFactory(), which seems high. Perhaps we're paging in the executable to access data at this point? - We spend 18% of the time (330 stacks) in poll(), from g_main_poll(). What are we doing? - We spend 5% of the time (241 stacks) parsing style sheets, that is, in CSSParserImpl::Parser(). - We spend 8% of the time (149 stacks) handling ContentInserted() notifications from asynchronous XBL loads. It appears that most of the time is spent constructing frames, so it's not clear that synchronously loading the XBL (i.e., so it would have been ``there already'') would buy much. - It appears that we spend - 10.8% of the time (201 stacks) in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrame(), - 10.7% of the time (199 stacks) in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameInternal(), - 4.9% of the time (90 stacks) in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructXULFrame(), and - 5.9% of the time (109 stacks) in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessChildren(). That is, when the sample was taken, the stack pointer was somewhere in these routines (not somewhere in a descendant of the routine). Take this evaluation with a grain of salt: since these routines recursively call each other, I'm not completely positive that I've properly understood jprof's accouting. More later...
Chris Waterson writes: >- We spend 1.7% of the time in nsStaticComponentLoader::GetFactory(), > which seems high. Perhaps we're paging in the executable to access > data at this point? Probably. dlopen() (depending on the OS) doesn't really load the entire library; quite a bit will get paged in later. >- We spend 18% of the time (330 stacks) in poll(), from > g_main_poll(). What are we doing? Those will be mostly waiting on IO I'd guess; you'll have to look at the exact stacks. The question what IO are we waiting on...??? I don't think we're doing async file IO so that wouldn't show up, and I don't think we should be doing network IO or DNS (but perhaps we are). Perhaps some things/Events are handled or generated off of timers as well, and we're waiting for those? This would be good to spend some time understanding. Perhaps it's a gtk/etc thing? What was used to end the profile, or shut mozilla down? If you did it by hand, that might account for it. Also, it may have been waiting for X - I don't know how gtk/gdk handles X; it may dispatch things async to X and then go back to the main event loop to poll.(!) Also, we have 41 hits (2.2%) in select() (i.e. sleeping waiting for some form of IO or timer). >- 329 stacks, or 17% of the time, was spent in CreateInstance(). The > biggest offenders are: > > - nsNSSComponentConstructor(), which accounts for 5.5% (103 stacks). > - nsChromeRegistryConstructor(), which accounts for 2% (39 stacks). > - nsAutoConfigConstructor(), which accounts for 1.6% (30 stacks). > - nsPrefServiceConstructor(), which accounts for 1.6% (29 stacks). > - NS_NewCharsetMenu(), which accounts for 1% (19 stacks). NSSComponentConstructor looks suspicious, especially since we haven't hit any https links yet. It spends 1/2 it's time in NewTempCertificate, a lot of in ASN1 decoding. Probably parsing key/etc files? The others may each deserve a short look for easy gains. The CharSetMenu is a good target for lazy creation. >- We spend 5% of the time (241 stacks) parsing style sheets, that is, > in CSSParserImpl::Parser(). This may be worth looking at a little. >- We spend 8% of the time (149 stacks) handling ContentInserted() > notifications from asynchronous XBL loads. It appears that most of > the time is spent constructing frames, so it's not clear that > synchronously loading the XBL (i.e., so it would have been ``there > already'') would buy much. Agreed. >- It appears that we spend > > - 10.8% of the time (201 stacks) in > nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrame(), > > - 10.7% of the time (199 stacks) in > nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameInternal(), > > - 4.9% of the time (90 stacks) in > nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructXULFrame(), and > > - 5.9% of the time (109 stacks) in > nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessChildren(). > > That is, when the sample was taken, the stack pointer was somewhere > in these routines (not somewhere in a descendant of the > routine). Take this evaluation with a grain of salt: since these > routines recursively call each other, I'm not completely positive > that I've properly understood jprof's accouting. Yes, those all wind in an out of each other a lot, then they devolve into a load of smaller hits all over. Untangling these (maybe looking at the raw stack frames) may help. Also, profiling some pageloads this way may show better where the FrameConstructers are spending time. Other notes: - 6.2% is spent in read(). - 4.8% is spent in nsContainerFrame::ReflowChild - 3.6% is spent in free() - and fair bit of that in locking/unlocking the pthread mutexes. - 3.6% is spent in malloc() - about 2/3's in malloc, 1/3 in pthreads. - 3.2% is spent in ~nsCOMPtr_base; about 1/4 in that itself(!?) and the rest in a bazillion ::Release methods. (I was a little surprised by the number of hits in this directly. The hits in ::Release are destructors and free(). The nsObjectHashtable destroy/reset code is hit a lot, but it all devolves to ::Release calls (i.e. destructors & free). nsXULPrototypeDocument::~nsXULPrototypeDocument(void) seems to get more hits than I'd expect. - 2.4% is spent in js_GetToken, 1% of it direct hits. - 2.3% is spent in js_GC, and separately about 1% in gc_root_marker - 2.3% is spent in doContent (from XML_Parse). - 1.3% is direct hits in kill (?) - 1.1% is spent in nsCSSScanner::Next - 1.1% is spent in nsHashtable::Get (from all over) - 1% is spent in libc_write - 1% is spent inflating zip files - 1% is spent parsing StdURL's; probably much of that allocing CStrings we're spending a couple of % in the dlopen and dl_runtime code. - 0.5% doing stat's (from a bunch of places) - 0.5% direct hits in nsCOMPtr_base::begin_assignment (seems odd) - 0.5% direct hits in nsStr::StrTruncate (seems odd) - 0.5% is spent in JS_DHashTableOperate (mostly direct hits in SearchTable) - 0.2% direct hits in nsVoidArray::InsertElementAt (I'll look at this) plus 0.3% in GrowArrayBy (really in Realloc) - 0.2% direct hits in nsVoidArray::ElementAt (I'll look at this but I think it's optimal) I noted there's ShutdownXPCOM called - I assume then this is a startup/shutdown pair? Perhaps startup, then signal (or JS?) to stop the logging would be better, though you'll pick a bunch of poll() hits. Some hotspots/solutions aren't obvious from a profile, especially when a lot of it is interpreting XUL/JS/etc. For example, lazy creation of things not immediately needed (especially if the lazy creation can be dropped onto a low-pri background thread; perhaps not possible in this case - or find some way to evaluate it on the main thread when it's otherwise idle, to avoid adding locking all over.).
Depends on: 94883
Depends on: 94366
> Those will be mostly waiting on IO I'd guess; you'll have to look > at the exact stacks. The question what IO are we waiting on...??? I don't > think we're doing async file IO so that wouldn't show up, and I don't think > we should be doing network IO or DNS (but perhaps we are). FWIW, if a PAC file is specified, it will be loaded during startup (prefs initialization) rather than waiting for a network event. (bug 83984)
Depends on: 83984
Depends on: 26455
I ran a jprof (JP_REALTIME JP_START JP_PERIOD=0.0003) on a dual 450 Linux box with plenty of RAM. This was a warm start, done seconds after having started and stopped it. I stoped the profile by hand after it had come up (with www.mozilla.org as the home, and tinderbox as the sidebar). Build: from about a week ago, with my ContentIterator fixes. Compiled with -O2 optimization. Summary: Note: %'s are always % of the total number of non-poll hits (157)! 'direct' is hits directly in the routine. 157 non-poll/etc hits. 59 (38%) in ResumeParse() art of this (<10%) is handling initial reflows. Most appears to be in doing *::OpenContainer calls. 32 (20%) is doing CSSLoaderImpl::ParseSheet() Most of that is inserting content, eventually calling nsCSSFrameConstructor::ContentInserted. 7 (4.5%) are in CSSParserImpl::Parse() 36 (23%) are in CreateInstance() (pre dp's patch) 22 (14%) are in nsDll::Load, probably all going to dlopen. Almost all of those are in dl_lookup_symbol (21, 13.5%) 15 (9.6%) in nsGenericFactory::CreateInstance calling Constructors and ::Create() methods 30 (19%) are in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrame (note: see ParseSheet above, this overlaps with that.) 25 (16%) in js_Interpret A fair bit of this is XBL. 6 (3.8%) in js_GetToken, 3 of them direct hits(!) 5 (3.2%) in js_ForceGC 5 (3.2%) in js_AtomizeString (1 direct) 17 (11%) in nsXBLService::LoadBindings 10 (6.4%) in ::InstallProperties, a lot of it executing JS 13 (8.3%) in nsDocShell::CreateContentViewer 13 (8.3%) in nsContainerFrame::Reflow (some overlap with above/below entries) 8 (5.1%) in nsBlockFrame::Reflow 13 (8.3%) in XPCWrappedNative::CallMethod, including 3 direct hits(!?) 13 (8.3%) in malloc()/new 12 (7.6%) in free(), including 2 direct hits. 11 (7.0%) in nsBox::Layout, called from Reflow() (see containerframe above) 11 (7.0%) in XML_Parse 10 (6.4%) in InitializeProfileService. Most of that is in: 8 (5.1%) nsChromeRegistry::FlushCaches calling GetServiceByContractID (this may be mostly in opening shared libs) 10 (6.4%) in nsPipe::nsPipeInputStream, almost all from: 9 (5.7%) in HaveDecodedRow, drawing images 7 (4.5%) destroying webshells/docshells and their frames 3 direct in memset (from 3 places) 2 direct in nsString::nsString(void) 2 direct in nsSupportsArray::QueryInterface 2 direct in memcpy 2 direct in nsString::Length 2 direct in JS_GetPrivate() I can upload the jprof or email it if someone likes
js_GetProperty seems to be a hotspot in the JS code. (6.4%) and it doesn't fan out too far.
Sorry, I meant _js_LookupProperty for the hotspot (JS_GetProperty is one of it's callers). The jprof will show you.
Depends on: 95823
Depends on: 95825
Depends on: 96457
Depends on: 96461
Depends on: 96464
Depends on: 96469
Depends on: 96701
Depends on: 97171
Depends on: 97172
Depends on: 97173
Depends on: 97175
No longer depends on: 97173
No longer depends on: 97172
trace-malloc results for mozilla startup, with blank page Type Count Bytes %Total TOTAL 115396 5863421 100.00 void* 23517 943767 16.10 registry-Buffer 1 512000 8.73 xpti-unclassified 250 274080 4.67 unclassified-string 5623 203441 3.47 JSScopeProperty 4460 160560 2.74 gtk-unclassified 928 159473 2.72 nsZipArchive 3438 147662 2.52 JS-Array 4654 144448 2.46 js_MatchToken 5046 135536 2.31 FrameArena 31 127565 2.18 JS-script 866 125423 2.14 nsXULElement 2086 118296 2.02 JS-atom 4085 114218 1.95 CSSDeclarationImpl 2732 109940 1.88 nsCSSRule 1342 106488 1.82 JSScope 1140 95760 1.63 nsComponentManagerImpl 2312 90464 1.54 nsTextFragment 360 90106 1.54 JS-unclassified 2110 87392 1.49 nsStaticCaseInsensitiveNameTable 2574 85184 1.45 orkin-unclassified 50 82694 1.41 X-unclassified 3187 82483 1.41 nsCStringKey 2525 77323 1.32 JS-GC-arena 8 73912 1.26 JS-function 2412 71840 1.23 nsXULAttribute 5 71680 1.22 AtomImpl 1749 65758 1.12 nsXULAttributes 865 62280 1.06 xptiInterfaceInfo 1409 62232 1.06 nsXMLElement 1137 59124 1.01 RuleHash 3782 58652 1.00 InMemoryDataSource 92 56074 0.96 nsPersistentProperties 1923 55962 0.95 sscanf 1504 55325 0.94 xptiManifest 1874 46336 0.79 JS-slots 818 45536 0.78 nsImageGTK 110 44008 0.75 nsXULPrototypeElement 891 42768 0.73 nsSupportsArray 582 32592 0.56 OTHER 22918 885039 15.09
Depends on: 97528
Depends on: 38621
Depends on: 101769
Depends on: 102785
Depends on: 103174
Depends on: 93055
No longer depends on: 5085
Depends on: 76944
No longer depends on: 38621
Blocks: 103712
Depends on: 103912
Depends on: 103916
Depends on: 104120
Blocks: 104166
Depends on: 104957
Depends on: 104959
Depends on: 104962
Depends on: 105040
Depends on: 105042
Depends on: 98275
No longer depends on: 96461
Depends on: 105301
Depends on: 92141
Depends on: 105501
Depends on: 105509
Depends on: 49142
Depends on: 103453, 105795
I made my own start up time "profiling", using FileMon from www.sysinternals.com. There were 9 sec stopwatch measured cold start time, 5.5 sec hot start (filemon activated). See attachments following (a .txt compilation of the largest times measured, an excel worksheet containing the cold start profiling data for the mozilla.org tree and an excel worksheet for the cold start profiling data for the Application Data tree). \PROGRAM FILES\MOZILLA.ORG AND SUBDIRECTORIES 7.39 sec for 3245 uncached (cold start) file operations. 0.104 sec for 2649 cached (hot start) file operations on mozilla.org dir and subdirs. Cold start values: TOTAL 2.07 sec for MOZILLA.ORG\MOZILLA TOTAL 2.3 sec for MOZILLA.ORG\MOZILLA\CHROME TOTAL 2.41 sec for MOZILLA.ORG\MOZILLA\COMPONENTS, including 0.90 sec for gecko (gk*.dll) TOTAL 0.327 sec for MOZILLA.ORG\MOZILLA\PREF TOTAL 0.361 sec for MOZILLA.ORG\MOZILLA\RES $HOME\APPLICATION DATA\MOZILLA AND SUBDIRECTORIES 0.566 sec for 436 uncached (cold start) file operations. 0.04 sec for 415 cached (hot start) file operations. MY HUMBLE CONCLUSIONS: - Huge part of cold start time (7.39 out of 9 sec) is due to file i/o (...you didn't already know that , heh? :-) - Oddly enough, hot start time is moderately reduced (9 -> 5.5 sec), although file io is reduced to a minimal 0.566 sec in that case. Is filemon reporting exaggerated numbers on cold start? - chrome is a beast (2.3 sec) with some jar files taking up to 0.482 sec (comm.jar) - xpcom is a small beast (0.621 sec) - Where is this precompiled chrome stuff ? xul.mfl (0.123 sec) maybe ? - At least 0.45 sec (5.65 % of total file io) could be gained from loading of messenger chrome and msgmapi.dll with Mail&News, instead of doing it at browser initialisation. Should I file a bug for it? - At least 0.106 sec (1.33 % of total file io) could be gained from delayed loading of chatzilla chrome - Are ucvlatin.dll (0.109 sec) and other similar libraries needed for creating the initial browser window? - Venkman doesn't add significant startup delay - 721 operations on Windows registry. I speculate many of them are unecessary at startup, but I have no idea of the time gained. Probably every file io gain might be significant on a heavily fragmented drive. - Oddly, 151 operations on Windows registry resulted in NOT FOUND, most of them are like this: HKCU\CLSID\{00021401-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}\InprocServer32. Is this normal ? - Extremely high level of component.reg usage reported by Daniel Bratell in bug 27510 seem not existing anymore (filemon reports 1064 KB total). TEST CONDITIONS: Build 2001101909, new clean profile, modern theme, Win2K SP2, K6-III/400, 192MB ram, 5400 rpm hdd
Coldstart -> warmstart doesn't drop as much as you expected because as a multi-threaded app, other things (CPU use) are happening during the (cold) file loads. On warmstart, you still have all the CPU use but can't overlap it with file IO. (Note: this is an assumption.) Loading mapi/messenger chrome with mail&news would be good; I suspect this has been thought of before and a bug exists. Do a query (or check bugs that this depends on) and add it if you can't find it. I suspect that a lot of the time for warmstart (and cold) is taken doing relocations, memory allocations and object/factory creations/initializations. See some of the jprofs.
The mailnews and chatzilla chrome are opened because both components overlay the browser to add items to the Tasks menu (and possibly other overlays). If we can't cache this somehow we could create a small "mailoverlay.jar" if it helps.
Randell, thank you for the clarification. With all my ignorance about javascript and the Mozilla structure, I do agree there's a lot of room on reducing memory allocations and other cpu/memory intensive operations during startup. But there's also a lot of work on reducing file i/o too. Warm start times are quite acceptable on low end machines with at least 64MB of memory. Cold start is what draws the attention of an average user (and he can't use turbo mode on low memory machines, because of footprint problems). Even worse, cold start is terribly affected by fragmentation. Couldn't we keep library and chrome loading to a minimum needed for showing a simple browser window? Even if start page is not blank, some delays from late-loaded files wiil be hidden by the network latencies, once a request for web data retrieval is issued. Bug 12896 isn't for the mail files I was talking about. I can't find a similar bug, so I will file a new one. As dveditz suggests, it might be feasible to find a solution for late loading those files.
Depends on: 105966
Depends on: 106087
Depends on: 106148
Keywords: meta
Depends on: 108612
Depends on: 109207
Depends on: 110340
Depends on: 110555
QA Contact: paw → hong
Depends on: 45008
Depends on: 112308
Depends on: 66877
Depends on: 113393
Depends on: 113467
Depends on: 113739
Depends on: 112767
Depends on: 98533
Depends on: 114914
Depends on: 115217
No longer depends on: 115217
Depends on: 115217
Depends on: 115164
Depends on: 115129
No longer depends on: 91242
Depends on: 116187
Depends on: 116191
Depends on: 115973
Depends on: 46707
Depends on: 102992
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.0
Blocks: advocacybugs
moving tracking/meta bugs out of milestone pools.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0 → Future
Depends on: 135505
Depends on: 146113
No longer depends on: 26291
Depends on: 91242
*** Bug 174091 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 185265 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Depends on: 118455
Depends on: 196843
Blocks: majorbugs
*** Bug 216801 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 235263 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Could somebody post the link to the graphs or charts which showed the startup times? Thanks.
(In reply to comment #53) > Could somebody post the link to the graphs or charts which showed the startup > times? Thanks. Anyone? Thanks again.
Blocks: 203448
No longer blocks: majorbugs
*** Bug 308628 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I don't know if this is the right place to post this bug, but since about 3 weeks now, minefield has extremely slow startup. Just upgraded to Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a7pre) Gecko/2007072505 Minefield/3.0a7pre and it took my 5 minutes! to boot it up. If I should post a new bug, just let me know. p.s. Is there any way I can make a trace of why this is taking so long?
Depends on: 408113
Assignee: cathleennscp → nobody
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
QA Contact: hong_bugmail → chofmann
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Depends on: 479078
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
How did this get reopened?
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago14 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
What's about the open 'Depends on' & 'Blocks' Bugs ??? Move to Bug 447581 ???
Flags: needinfo?
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: