Javascript Performance Thread

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Post Reply
WonderCsabo
Posts: 2230
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 9:29 am
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by WonderCsabo »

We wont see a performance boost, because the AWFY page uses Firefox builds witch already contain TI.
dao-g
Posts: 670
Joined: January 31st, 2005, 5:37 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by dao-g »

WonderCsabo wrote:We wont see a performance boost, because the AWFY page uses Firefox builds witch already contain TI.

http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=regress does, http://arewefastyet.com/ doesn't.
greg86
Posts: 50
Joined: January 28th, 2007, 11:33 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by greg86 »

where did u see a boost on http://www.arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=regress&runs=300 ???
i only see regressions since middle of august
dbcooper.dk
Posts: 895
Joined: March 14th, 2010, 3:44 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by dbcooper.dk »

iwod wrote:Great, next would be to further optimize for V8 benchmarks to wipe the smug face off Chrome.


That will come with the implementation of incremental and generational GC.
Ver Greeneyes
Posts: 1030
Joined: June 28th, 2008, 4:57 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Ver Greeneyes »

The main page will display the TI-enabled results once bug 683410 lands.
Blechnum
Posts: 26
Joined: October 28th, 2010, 1:33 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Blechnum »

Finally something happening!
Here is what I'm seeing (compared to two days ago): V8 improved from 4109 to 4607, Kraken improved from 5351.2 ms to 4573.1 ms and Sunspider also went down from 258 ms to 246.3 ms. Nice. But Peacekeaper took a turn for the worse I'm afraid: the score went down from 5241 to 4671.
There are also regressions in some of the subtests in Kraken and V8 but I don't got the numbers.
Oh well, at least things are moving again. :D
WonderCsabo
Posts: 2230
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 9:29 am
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by WonderCsabo »

I think the about:config pref for TI should contain the word "jit". In that case, you can search for "jit", and all JS engine prefs come up.
I remember some dev suggested the same for profiling. Guys, do you think it worths opening a bug?
Mark342
Posts: 277
Joined: September 14th, 2010, 4:15 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Mark342 »

Make sure you guys are testing the latest version of V8 (version 6) when comparing inference on/off
javascript.options.typeinference set to true:
V8: 5472
Highest scores:
Crypto: 13707
DeltaBlue: 10546

other scores:
Richards: 7692

Sunspider: 232.4ms +/- 0.9%

Kraken: 3961.6ms +/- 0.6%

---------------------------------------------------
javscript.options.typeinference set to false:
V8: 4193
Highest scores:
Richards: 6563
Crypto: 5816

Other scores:
DeltaBlue: 4708

Sunspider:
260.1ms +/- 2.0%

Kraken:
5322.7ms +/- 0.4%
--------------------------------------------

Note: the browser must be restarted for javascript.options.typeinference to take affect
UrbenLegend
Posts: 307
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 11:12 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by UrbenLegend »

Seems like there's a performance regression for http://bellard.org/jslinux/

It used to boot up in 6 seconds. Now with TI it boots up in 13 seconds.

EDIT: Found bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=670885
nadark
Posts: 491
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 9:12 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by nadark »

Mark342 wrote:Make sure you guys are testing the latest version of V8 (version 6) when comparing inference on/off
javascript.options.typeinference set to true:
V8: 5472
Highest scores:
Crypto: 13707
DeltaBlue: 10546

other scores:
Richards: 7692

Sunspider: 232.4ms +/- 0.9%

Kraken: 3961.6ms +/- 0.6%

---------------------------------------------------
javscript.options.typeinference set to false:
V8: 4193
Highest scores:
Richards: 6563
Crypto: 5816

Other scores:
DeltaBlue: 4708

Sunspider:
260.1ms +/- 2.0%

Kraken:
5322.7ms +/- 0.4%
--------------------------------------------

Note: the browser must be restarted for javascript.options.typeinference to take affect



I think I read somewhere that there's some overhead for including TI in the browser and turning off the pref only doesn't get rid of it due to the complexity of the code needing a lot of changes in the javascript engine to work , since most people don't run with TI disabled. If you could, could you test with the build just before TI landed on the trunk.
dutchguy
Posts: 199
Joined: October 14th, 2003, 12:39 am

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by dutchguy »

They removed the 'old' engines from the regression page :)
User avatar
Zlip792
Posts: 1340
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 1:47 pm
Location: Pakistan

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Zlip792 »

Is TI graph is in actual (JM+TI) graph? or JM+TI will be added later?
iwod
Posts: 1033
Joined: July 18th, 2003, 10:09 pm

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by iwod »

Anyone know when is Incremental GC landing? It seems to be read and finished

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641027

But dont know what is stopping it to land.
Astrophizz
Posts: 235
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 1:15 pm

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by Astrophizz »

They also removed the 'old' engines from the regular page and didn't replace it with TI...
phuzi0n
Posts: 517
Joined: June 23rd, 2010, 5:48 pm

Re: TM and JM Performance Thread

Post by phuzi0n »

Is Firebug killing javascript performance after TI landed for anyone else? I tried updating to the latest stable Firebug 1.8.2 and then to 1.9.0a1 but it still slows down v8 benchmark by ~4x and sunspider by ~2x. I made sure that Firebug's javascript profiling is disabled (with Firebug profiling enabled v8 is ~10x slower).
Post Reply