Closed
Bug 948554
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Record max incremental cycle collector slice pause time
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, defect)
Core
XPCOM
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla29
People
(Reporter: mccr8, Assigned: mccr8)
References
Details
Attachments
(4 files)
3.97 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
6.89 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
8.95 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.23 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
L64 debug, without bc: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=c77d537f39fc
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
This name is more precise, because we must call it once per slice,
not once per CC. Being a method on the CC stats object is more consistent.
Attachment #8346009 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
I was getting some weird too-big slice times, I think due to PRTime problems, so
I just converted these over to TimeStamp.
Attachment #8346011 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8346012 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8346009 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8346011 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] from comment #3)
> I was getting some weird too-big slice times, I think due to PRTime
> problems
Hmm, this sounds odd.
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8346012 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #5)
> Hmm, this sounds odd.
Yeah, I may have just had some kind of other bug in my patch that I happened to fix later. I'm not entirely sure.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
backed out by Ryan for a Win7 debug xpcshell orange:
Assertion failure: !aOther.IsNull() (Cannot compute with aOther null value), at c:\builds\moz2_slave\m-in-w32-d-0000000000000000000\build\obj-firefox\dist\include\mozilla/TimeStamp.h:313
and maybe Win7 debug xpcshell timeouts.
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b464f609a193
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
I think I figured out what was triggering the assertion: under some circumstances, you
can end up calling ShouldTriggerCC() before sLastCCEndTime is set. But with that fixed,
it turns out that every call to TimeUntilNow does a null check on the argument, which
is annoying and error prone. So, in this patch, which I will land folded into part 2,
I just return 0 for TimeUntilNow() if the argument is null. It is used to answer questions
like "Has enough time passed?" and "Is this span of time larger than this other one?"
so it seems like a reasonable thing to do. As part of the fix, I also removed the
null check in the next patch.
try run: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=892582b078f9
Attachment #8351225 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8351225 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b0411822f934
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3453305f7101
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/25b496a8f68c
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla29
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
So this bug caused a regression in the GC API given that we now have a more precise timing available. Instead of milliseconds we are getting microseconds now. We discovered that changed behavior with memchaser and for now it is tracked in issue https://github.com/mozilla/memchaser/issues/184.
Andrew and Olli, is that an expected change or shall we hide that behind the API?
Flags: needinfo?(continuation)
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Isn't it actually bug 948554 that caused the regression?
Flags: needinfo?(continuation)
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Oh, sorry, that's this bug. I got confused. No, that's not expected behavior.
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] from comment #14)
> Oh, sorry, that's this bug. I got confused. No, that's not expected
> behavior.
Ok, so I will go ahead and file a new bug for that in a bit. Thanks for your feedback.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•