e10s-multi
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: November 5th, 2002, 1:35 pm
- Location: Tallinn, Estonia
e10s-multi
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1304546
It seems in Aurora 55 will be enabled 2 or 4 process.
It seems in Aurora 55 will be enabled 2 or 4 process.
- GHM113
- Posts: 707
- Joined: December 16th, 2015, 3:59 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: e10s-multi
It looks like it is time to enable 8 content processes in Nightly
Sorry for my poor English.
-
- Posts: 7364
- Joined: July 28th, 2009, 4:52 pm
Re: e10s-multi
That won't happen http://www.erahm.org/2017/03/10/are-the ... t-round-2/GHM113 wrote:It looks like it is time to enable 8 content processes in Nightly
- Virtual_ManPL
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: July 24th, 2008, 5:52 am
- Contact:
Re: e10s-multi
Mozilla should implement a heuristic to replace dom.ipc.processCount (Bug 1066789).GHM113 wrote:It looks like it is time to enable 8 content processes in Nightly
Virtualfox persona
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
- squall_leonhart
- Posts: 885
- Joined: March 17th, 2008, 5:32 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: e10s-multi
no thanks, not till lazy tabs are implemented completely.Virtual_ManPL wrote:Mozilla should implement a heuristic to replace dom.ipc.processCount (Bug 1066789).GHM113 wrote:It looks like it is time to enable 8 content processes in Nightly
- Omega X
- Posts: 8225
- Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
- Location: A Parallel Dimension...
Re: e10s-multi
4 processes are already default in Nightly.
- Virtual_ManPL
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: July 24th, 2008, 5:52 am
- Contact:
Re: e10s-multi
Thanks to this, Firefox on 1&2 threaded CPUs is already experiencing massive slowdowns, especially the laggy mouse and GUI, when user opens some amount of tabs in one go.Omega X wrote:4 processes are already default in Nightly.
Virtualfox persona
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
- GHM113
- Posts: 707
- Joined: December 16th, 2015, 3:59 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: e10s-multi
I have two stupid questions about e10s-multi:
1. Let's imagine there are a bunch of bookmarks loading in the background while I am scrolling the web page in the current tab. Can the loading bookmarks affect the scrolling fps in the current tab? Hardware is not the bottleneck.
2. If yes, will increasing the number of content processes improve scrolling fps in the current tab in this situation? Hardware is not the bottleneck.
1. Let's imagine there are a bunch of bookmarks loading in the background while I am scrolling the web page in the current tab. Can the loading bookmarks affect the scrolling fps in the current tab? Hardware is not the bottleneck.
2. If yes, will increasing the number of content processes improve scrolling fps in the current tab in this situation? Hardware is not the bottleneck.
Sorry for my poor English.
- Virtual_ManPL
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: July 24th, 2008, 5:52 am
- Contact:
Re: e10s-multi
Yes.GHM113 wrote:I have two stupid questions about e10s-multi:
1. Let's imagine there are a bunch of bookmarks loading in the background while I am scrolling the web page in the current tab. Can the loading bookmarks affect the scrolling fps in the current tab?
Depends,GHM113 wrote:2. If yes, will increasing the number of content processes improve scrolling fps in the current tab in this situation?
if dom.ipc.processCount has the value of how many threads your CPU has, it should be optimal setting, for now at least,
as still background tabs heavily affect foreground tab. Also don't forget that we still have other processes like GUI, GPU etc.
It's based on my tests, you can do the same and compare, if it's the same in your case.
Virtualfox persona
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
- GHM113
- Posts: 707
- Joined: December 16th, 2015, 3:59 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: e10s-multi
Thank you! I forgot to add I was talking about the case when hardware is not the bottleneck. But I guess you were assuming that, right?Virtual_ManPL wrote:Yes.
I haven't noticed any difference between 4 and 8 content processes with i5 2300, however, scrolling fps in the current tab seems to be completely unaffected by the tabs loading in the background if these tabs belong to different content processes (and hardware is not the bottleneck, of course). For example: current tab uses process 1000, background tabs use processes 1001, 1002, 1003, etc.Virtual_ManPL wrote:It's based on my tests, you can do the same and compare, if it's the same in your case.
Also, restoring previously saved session with browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand set to false is enough to cause constant drops of scrolling fps in the current tab even though there are just 3 tabs loading at once in the background.
Sorry for my poor English.
-
- Posts: 5469
- Joined: May 13th, 2012, 10:43 am
Re: e10s-multi
FWIW I've been running with 20 processes for awhile now and I've not noticed any particular slow-downs here or issues.
-
- Posts: 469
- Joined: August 30th, 2012, 4:27 am
Re: e10s-multi
With AMD bringing 6 and 8 cores at Broadwell-E performance and mainstream prices, hopefully this shouldn't be too far away. Honestly, people with that many cores wouldn't be using 4/8Gb ram setups anyways so the RAM issue is silly. Also performance comparisons are all done without information of the hardware it was tested on...Josa wrote:That won't happen http://www.erahm.org/2017/03/10/are-the ... t-round-2/GHM113 wrote:It looks like it is time to enable 8 content processes in Nightly
-
- Posts: 269
- Joined: February 7th, 2013, 3:19 pm
Re: e10s-multi
Not entirely true (at the least, very crude). A tab is still bound to a certain process. In this case, the question is whether the current process is busy with other things. When he is loading a bunch of tabs in the background like he said before and all processes are 100% busy, it is probably indeed better to have the same number of processes as your CPU has threads (or just a little more actually, since these processes will sometimes be waiting for I/O, and you want to run other render stuff on your CPU at that point). If not much is happening on the background, a higher dom.ipc.processCount is better, since it will be more like one tab per process.Virtual_ManPL wrote:Depends,GHM113 wrote:2. If yes, will increasing the number of content processes improve scrolling fps in the current tab in this situation?
if dom.ipc.processCount has the value of how many threads your CPU has, it should be optimal setting, for now at least,
as still background tabs heavily affect foreground tab.
- Virtual_ManPL
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: July 24th, 2008, 5:52 am
- Contact:
Re: e10s-multi
I'm waiting for AMD Ryzen 5Are You A Wiiizard? wrote:With AMD bringing 6 and 8 cores at Broadwell-E performance and mainstream prices, hopefully this shouldn't be too far away.
Yet, you sill said nearly exactly the same thing as me... or maybe I'm missing point or I didn't understood properlyTimvde wrote:Not entirely true (at the least, very crude)Virtual_ManPL wrote:Depends,GHM113 wrote:2. If yes, will increasing the number of content processes improve scrolling fps in the current tab in this situation?
if dom.ipc.processCount has the value of how many threads your CPU has, it should be optimal setting, for now at least,
as still background tabs heavily affect foreground tab.
I'm just sharing my opinion based on my tests, but even looking on Mozilla developers, they have the same results.
Only for protecting tabs from crashes,Timvde wrote:If not much is happening on the background, a higher dom.ipc.processCount is better, since it will be more like one tab per process.
in other ways, I didn't observed any performance gains for having more web processes than CPU threads,
just only more memory.
Virtualfox persona
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
Tired of constant Firefox UI changes? XUL extensions are not working anymore? Try SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon.
- GHM113
- Posts: 707
- Joined: December 16th, 2015, 3:59 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: e10s-multi
I noticed long time ago that loading a web page with big number of thumbnails drops the scrolling fps in the current tab so I decided to compare Dev Edition performance in two cases:
Scrolling the web page in the current tab while there is a web page with big number of thumbnails loading in the background; 1 content process
Scrolling the web page in the current tab while there is a web page with big number of thumbnails loading in the background; 4 content processes
Results:
Scrolling fps drops heavily for a second with 1 content process, scrolling fps doesn't drop and remains stable with 4 content processes. Conclusion: the less the number of tabs per content process, the higher the scrolling fps in the current tab. Ideal: 1 tab per process
Scrolling the web page in the current tab while there is a web page with big number of thumbnails loading in the background; 1 content process
Scrolling the web page in the current tab while there is a web page with big number of thumbnails loading in the background; 4 content processes
Results:
Scrolling fps drops heavily for a second with 1 content process, scrolling fps doesn't drop and remains stable with 4 content processes. Conclusion: the less the number of tabs per content process, the higher the scrolling fps in the current tab. Ideal: 1 tab per process
Sorry for my poor English.