MozillaZine

Javascript Performance Thread

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

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 3:06 pm

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

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 3:52 pm

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

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 4:57 pm


_Alexander

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

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 6:26 pm

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

patrickjdempsey

User avatar
 
Posts: 23734
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 8:11 pm

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: 1014
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 11:15 pm

Post Posted July 17th, 2010, 10:12 pm

Ha, that's awesome.

smoohta
 
Posts: 22
Joined: April 15th, 2010, 12:21 pm

Post Posted July 19th, 2010, 3:45 pm


Harsh86
 
Posts: 93
Joined: August 23rd, 2004, 4:34 am

Post Posted July 23rd, 2010, 9:16 am

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: 1028
Joined: July 18th, 2003, 10:09 pm

Post Posted July 23rd, 2010, 8:50 pm

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....

patrickjdempsey

User avatar
 
Posts: 23734
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC

Post Posted July 23rd, 2010, 8:56 pm

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/

Adrian1

User avatar
 
Posts: 154
Joined: May 5th, 2010, 4:40 am

Post Posted July 24th, 2010, 1:33 am

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.

Erunno

User avatar
 
Posts: 746
Joined: December 5th, 2008, 10:56 am

Post Posted July 24th, 2010, 1:44 am

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.

Adrian1

User avatar
 
Posts: 154
Joined: May 5th, 2010, 4:40 am

Post Posted July 24th, 2010, 4:00 am

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

Post Posted July 24th, 2010, 1:39 pm

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

Post Posted July 25th, 2010, 7:57 am

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.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests