Paul [pwd] Reporter
	Description • 10 years ago

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0
Build ID: 20141115210040

Steps to reproduce:

Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64 bit machines.

	:Gijs (he/him)
	Comment 1 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0)
> User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
> Firefox/36.0
> Build ID: 20141115210040
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> 
> Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to
> describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux
> machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some
> discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64
> bit machines.

Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines?

	Liz Henry (:lizzard Please n-i to RyanVM, jcristau, or pascal)
	Comment 2 • 10 years ago

Here's the discussion: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2779793&p=13879859

	Paul [pwd] Reporter
	Comment 3 • 10 years ago

(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1)
> (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0)
> > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
> > Firefox/36.0
> > Build ID: 20141115210040
> > 
> > Steps to reproduce:
> > 
> > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to
> > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux
> > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some
> > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64
> > bit machines.
> 
> Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same
> machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the
> 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines?

I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required.

	:Gijs (he/him)
	Comment 4 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #3)
> (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0)
> > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
> > > Firefox/36.0
> > > Build ID: 20141115210040
> > > 
> > > Steps to reproduce:
> > > 
> > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to
> > > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux
> > > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some
> > > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64
> > > bit machines.
> > 
> > Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same
> > machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the
> > 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines?
> 
> I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's
> a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s
> enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required.

Running any kind of benchmark about web performance would be helpful. If there are things that stand out, using the gecko profiler ( https://github.com/bgirard/Gecko-Profiler-Addon ) may help.

	Paul [pwd] Reporter
	Comment 5 • 10 years ago

(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #3)
> > (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #1)
> > > (In reply to Paul [pwd] from comment #0)
> > > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
> > > > Firefox/36.0
> > > > Build ID: 20141115210040
> > > > 
> > > > Steps to reproduce:
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for how non-technical this bug is, but I'm not sure how best to
> > > > describe it other than performance is incredibly slow for 32 bit Linux
> > > > machines. Considerably slower than a non e10s page load. After some
> > > > discussion on MozilliaZine, it would appear the problem doesn't affect 64
> > > > bit machines.
> > > 
> > > Can you link to this discussion? Can you provide measurements on the same
> > > machine for 32 and 64-bit builds? Are you sure this isn't just about how the
> > > 64-bit machines are more likely to be recent than the 32-bit machines?
> > 
> > I don't have measurements, it was a non-technical discussion. But if there's
> > a build or tool to measure just how bad performance is effected with e10s
> > enabled, I'd be happy to provide the data required.
> 
> Running any kind of benchmark about web performance would be helpful. If
> there are things that stand out, using the gecko profiler (
> https://github.com/bgirard/Gecko-Profiler-Addon ) may help.

Hopefully these help.

	Paul [pwd] Reporter
	Comment 6 • 10 years ago

So I was hoping much of this would be down to perception as a result of bug 1106936 but it turns out that's not the case. Rendering is still far far slower than with e10s disables (i.e. a blank white screen is displayed). Still getting a giant spinner on dormant tabs. On opening Firefox, it still takes a very long time to load app tabs. Some of the performance issues are best showcased when comparing opening a bookmarks folder (say 8 tabs).

	msth67
	Comment 7 • 10 years ago

I haven't done any profiling yet,just some basic tests enabling OMTC along with e10s in Linux 64bit, and there is detectable hit in performance here too : in other words, as far as I can see e10s  is significantly slower on Linux 64bit as well.

	Paul [pwd] Reporter
	Comment 8 • 9 years ago

I believe bug 1066531 could significantly help in regards to this issue.

	Brad Lassey [:blassey] (use needinfo?)
	Comment 9 • 9 years ago

Lots of changes in the last yea, still see this?

	Mike Conley (:mconley) (:⚙️)
	Comment 12 • 8 years ago

Looking at these profiles, a ton of time is being spent in AdBlock and NoScript over the shims.

I know that both of these add-ons have gotten a lot better at avoiding shims with their latest updates. Reporter, are you still seeing this slowdown?

	Mike Conley (:mconley) (:⚙️)
	Comment 13 • 8 years ago

Going to close this out until we get profiles showing slowdowns in core code.