Last Comment Bug 984961 - CSS animation consumes a significant amount of power at 163.com
: CSS animation consumes a significant amount of power at 163.com
Status: NEW
[Power:P1]
: power
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: Layout (show other bugs)
: 28 Branch
: x86 Windows 8.1
-- normal with 5 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it
:
: Jet Villegas (:jet)
Mentors:
http://people.mozilla.org/~rvitillo/d...
: 986464 987169 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: power
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-03-18 09:15 PDT by Roberto Agostino Vitillo (:rvitillo)
Modified: 2015-10-18 00:31 PDT (History)
10 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments
Testcase 1 (1.06 KB, text/html)
2014-03-18 09:15 PDT, Roberto Agostino Vitillo (:rvitillo)
no flags Details

Description User image Roberto Agostino Vitillo (:rvitillo) 2014-03-18 09:15:10 PDT
Created attachment 8392930 [details]
Testcase 1

Idling on the 163.com homepage seems to consume significantly more energy than on IE and Chrome, particularly in terms of GPU power.

The culprit is the animated image shown in the testcase.
Comment 1 User image Roberto Agostino Vitillo (:rvitillo) 2014-03-21 06:21:16 PDT
*** Bug 986464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 User image Roberto Agostino Vitillo (:rvitillo) 2014-03-24 09:16:50 PDT
*** Bug 987169 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 User image Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] 2015-10-05 15:13:21 PDT
The animation in the attachment is still present on the front page of 163.com. I measured the attachment on Mac.

Nightly:

>     total W = _pkg_ (cores + _gpu_ + other) + _ram_ W
> #01 15.53 W = 12.00 ( 0.84 +  4.07 +  7.08) +  3.52 W
> 
> 1 sample taken over a period of 30.000 seconds
> 
> Name                               ID     CPU ms/s  User%  Deadlines (<2 ms, 2-5 ms)  Wakeups (Intr, Pkg idle)  GPU ms/s
> com.apple.Terminal                 109    271.77                                      73.43   53.34             421.16
>   firefox                          16774  135.54    71.63  0.07    0.03               69.54   51.15             421.21
>   plugin-container                 16775  131.89    83.40  1.10    0.30               3.40    1.93              0.00
>   Terminal                         208    5.58      86.01  0.00    0.00               0.43    0.27              0.00

Safari:

>     total W = _pkg_ (cores + _gpu_ + other) + _ram_ W
> #01  6.65 W =  4.74 ( 0.16 +  0.33 +  4.25) +  1.91 W
> 
> 1 sample taken over a period of 30.000 seconds
> 
> Name                               ID     CPU ms/s  User%  Deadlines (<2 ms, 2-5 ms)  Wakeups (Intr, Pkg idle)  GPU ms/s
> com.apple.Safari                   397    41.01                                       38.58   34.29             1.81    
>   com.apple.WebKit.WebContent      16699  40.93     75.42  0.00    0.00               38.42   34.12             1.81    
>   com.apple.WebKit.WebContent      16701  0.12      64.07  0.00    0.00               0.17    0.17              0.00    

Chrome:

>     total W = _pkg_ (cores + _gpu_ + other) + _ram_ W
> #01 12.50 W =  9.56 ( 0.85 +  2.59 +  6.12) +  2.94 W
> 
> 1 sample taken over a period of 30.000 seconds
> 
> Name                               ID     CPU ms/s  User%  Deadlines (<2 ms, 2-5 ms)  Wakeups (Intr, Pkg idle)  GPU ms/s
> com.google.Chrome                  398    473.34                                      280.61  186.95            99.76   
>   Google Chrome Helper             16736  181.79    68.18  0.00    0.00               158.78  118.16            99.77   
>   Google Chrome Helper             16741  161.92    74.78  0.00    0.00               60.48   33.92             0.00    
>   Google Chrome                    16732  131.60    70.08  0.27    0.17               61.38   34.89             0.00    

Firefox is hammering the GPU in this case.
Comment 4 User image Benoit Girard (:BenWa) 2015-10-05 15:35:12 PDT
This is where bug 1124325 comes in handy. Can we get the same numbers for a simpler test:
http://people.mozilla.org/~nfroyd/power-test-pages/colorflash.html

I want to know here if the difference is caused by partial present or we're just having a worse layer tree.
Comment 5 User image Benoit Girard (:BenWa) 2015-10-05 15:40:38 PDT
Also Safari is getting less than 60 wake-ups which seems suspicious. I wonder if they're even running at 60 FPS like we are. Are we getting ~3.4 wakeups in our content process? Maybe we're not going to sleep frames? I'm not sure the values look correct.

Also keep in mind that on OSX you need to measure the WindowServer activity as well. Particularly since Safari offloads a lot of the computation there then Firefox and Chrome.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.