Javascript Performance Thread

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Post Reply
neo86
Posts: 124
Joined: July 21st, 2008, 2:53 pm

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by neo86 »

smoohta wrote:Well... in the video you posted you can see dmandelin's directory: http://people.mozilla.org/~dmandelin/Summit2010/ from which he opened the ants benchmark.
If you snoop in it, you can see there's a browsers folder with moo1.zip (supposedly the win32 JM moo build he was using in the presentation) and a "regular" firefox-3.7a5pre.en-US.win32.zip...
There's also an ants folder containing the cool ants benchmark :)

I've tried the moo build with the ants benchmark and it seems to work just like in the presentation, though I couldn't get JSNES to load due to some javascript errors... :(


I get a script timeout on the iGoogle homepage with that build. :-k
Cold-Phoenix
Posts: 43
Joined: May 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Cold-Phoenix »

Would it not seem sensible given real world doesn't match benchmarking to have a 'profiling enabled' build that acts like the heat mapping systems you see on websites, namely that the most highly stressed areas of the browser are highlighted for improvement and rarely used sections of code aren't prioritised. It stands to reason that while the two js engines system will be quick, a combined hybrid system would save a layer of processing namely tm > jm > native.

My suggestion would go beyond just js though and basicly time and account for all elements of the experience reporting back so developers can see where the most time could be shaved. The other side of this is that you could utilise the seperate layers of jm/tm as 'high speed'/'compatibility' modes.
tompa
Posts: 50
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 7:57 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by tompa »

User avatar
_Alexander
Posts: 1197
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 2:24 pm
Location: Your augmented reality

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by _Alexander »

tompa wrote:They plan to work hard:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579522

:-)

:lol:
http://magneticpudding.com/ <- My Blog
i5 3570k @ 4.5 Ghz / NV 660 / 32GB DDR3 / 1080p LCD / SSD (120 + 180) / W8 ||| Atom N270 / NV ION / 3GB DDR3 / SSD / 1366x768 / W8
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by patrickjdempsey »

BEST BUG EVER!!!!!!!!!
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
mattcoz
Posts: 1021
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 11:15 pm

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by mattcoz »

Ha, that's awesome.
Harsh86
Posts: 94
Joined: August 23rd, 2004, 4:34 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Harsh86 »

Looks like Jaegermonkey has finally caught up with Tracemonkey on SunSpider. Tracemonkey has also just passed the <700ms line.
http://www.arewefastyet.com

Also it seems Andreas Gal has a 4.5% win on SS for Tracemonkey in the works https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580752
iwod
Posts: 1033
Joined: July 18th, 2003, 10:09 pm

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by iwod »

So we finally we have something insight. If we get a 15 - 20% Performance Win on SS with TM, Added the benefits of JM we should be close to V8 and Nitro....
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by patrickjdempsey »

iwod wrote:So we finally we have something insight.


... in September according to that.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
User avatar
Adrian1
Posts: 154
Joined: May 5th, 2010, 4:40 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Adrian1 »

iwod wrote:So we finally we have something insight. If we get a 15 - 20% Performance Win on SS with TM, Added the benefits of JM we should be close to V8 and Nitro....

I think time is the answer at that ,check the JaegerSpeed bug category to see the planned improvment in term of speed.
User avatar
Erunno
Posts: 746
Joined: December 5th, 2008, 10:56 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Erunno »

How significant are the Sunspider results though? Sunspider did not catch the fundamental problem that TraceMonkey simply fails in many real-life situations when there are no/not many long-running loops to optimize. So despite JägerMonkey being as fast as TraceMonkey on synthetic tests right now the former might actually perform already perform better because it covers more cases.
The previous signature has been removed again. Enjoy your month off, Erunno.
User avatar
Adrian1
Posts: 154
Joined: May 5th, 2010, 4:40 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Adrian1 »

Erunno wrote:How significant are the Sunspider results though? Sunspider did not catch the fundamental problem that TraceMonkey simply fails in many real-life situations when there are no/not many long-running loops to optimize. So despite JägerMonkey being as fast as TraceMonkey on synthetic tests right now the former might actually perform already perform better because it covers more cases.

Yes you have right, but many people continue to compare browsers in term of speed using this syntetic tests.
Theliel
Posts: 102
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 8:41 am

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Theliel »

Interesting JSNES part playing 60fps. Ants part arent impresive, my score its better 100-110fps without spider, 430-450 JS speed. With Spider and food, fps dont fall from 27fps with 32 JS speed.

Im waiting for JM, im sure will be very interesting part. Anyway, im agreement with you, and JavaScript its only a performance part of a whole.
Cold-Phoenix
Posts: 43
Joined: May 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Firefox 4.0 TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Cold-Phoenix »

Would the problem of lack of 'real world' benchmarks simply be a case of taking the javascript from say 10-20 popular sites, gathering it together and adjusting the output format, so that all parts have to pass and be of a certain speed to complete the output. Sounds tricky but shouldn't be that hard plus you could do a number of things to automate the process, you could for example setup a page that inserts the .js files from sites directly then uses the functions in the same way as the sites do, thus resulting in an 'always updated' benchmark.

Jsnes, sunspider etc are fine at what they do but the real test would be to throw massive amounts of 'common' content at it and judge which areas need improving.
Post Reply