To improve content process startup I'm trying to load a few things lazily at startup if it's possible. I wonder if we need everything from ExtensionContent.jsm right from startup or is there anything we can load lazily.

We can probably load most of it lazily, yeah. We'd at least need some skeleton bootstrap code loaded from the start, though.

After these changes, sessionrestore overhead is down to somewhere between 1 and 10ms with a simple content script add-on installed, and about 10ms faster than the previous baseline for no_autorestore, since we previously loaded ExtensionContent.jsm even when no extension was installed. ts_paint overhead is likewise down to ~4-20ms (depending on Linux vs. win32), and about a 10-20ms improvement over the previous baseline in e10s. tp5o is about the same as the previous baseline and tp5o responsiveness is improved by ~2-5%. https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/compare?originalProject=mozilla-inbound&originalRevision=21062cd63dd72565a4f9afc35bb4f6f78726096c&newProject=try&newRevision=d381550636c72215f54f9f1bb35a7df450885b55&framework=1&filter=session&showOnlyImportant=0

Comment on attachment 8855627 [details] Bug 1317697: Fix reference to undefined property warnings. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127488/#review131046 logic isn't right

Comment on attachment 8855628 [details] Bug 1317697: Fix handling of more canceled responses. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127490/#review131048 The commit message says this fixes something, but the patch merely adds channelId.

Comment on attachment 8855628 [details] Bug 1317697: Fix handling of more canceled responses. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127490/#review131048 Correct. Adding the channel ID fixes the canceled response handling for those objects.

Comment on attachment 8855630 [details] Bug 1317697: Lazily initialize Schemas.jsm. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127494/#review131060

Comment on attachment 8855648 [details] Bug 1317697: Remove things from ExtensionUtils that don't belong there. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127512/#review131064

Comment on attachment 8855951 [details] Bug 1317697: Update initial process data after permission changes. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127828/#review131074 Tests for this are difficult to say the least, r+ with a followup bug to look into that.

(In reply to Kris Maglione [:kmag] from comment #31) > Comment on attachment 8855628 [details] > Bug 1317697: Fix handling of more canceled responses. > > https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127490/#review131048 > > Correct. Adding the channel ID fixes the canceled response handling for > those objects. Is there a test that currently covers that (and which one?), if not can we add one?

(In reply to Shane Caraveo (:mixedpuppy) from comment #35) > (In reply to Kris Maglione [:kmag] from comment #31) > > Correct. Adding the channel ID fixes the canceled response handling for > > those objects. > > Is there a test that currently covers that (and which one?), if not can we > add one? Not really. This is mostly meant to reduce confusing noise in tests, so it's not meant to be perfect, and it would be hard to test reliably. I could add a test for it, but if it breaks, people will notice the extra noise in their tests pretty quickly.

Comment on attachment 8855628 [details] Bug 1317697: Fix handling of more canceled responses. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127490/#review131092 Kris explained on irc, this property is checked has a part of abortedResponses, but was missing in these cases.

Comment on attachment 8855631 [details] Bug 1317697: Split ExtensionContent.jsm into a stub process script. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127496/#review131128 ::: toolkit/components/extensions/test/mochitest/test_ext_contentscript_cache.html:70 (Diff revision 5) > chromeScript = SpecialPowers.loadChromeScript(() => { > addMessageListener("check-script-cache", extensionId => { > let {ExtensionManager} = Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/ExtensionContent.jsm", {}); > let ext = ExtensionManager.extensions.get(extensionId); > > + if (ext) { Why wouldn't there be an extension here?

Comment on attachment 8855631 [details] Bug 1317697: Split ExtensionContent.jsm into a stub process script. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127496/#review131128 > Why wouldn't there be an extension here? Because we create the extension instance lazily the first time it's needed, and it's not actually needed in the parent process in this test.

Comment on attachment 8855627 [details] Bug 1317697: Fix reference to undefined property warnings. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127488/#review132726

Comment on attachment 8855631 [details] Bug 1317697: Split ExtensionContent.jsm into a stub process script. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127496/#review133018

Comment on attachment 8855632 [details] Bug 1317697: Split extension page child and content script child code as much as possible. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/127498/#review133020

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9504ce3f418c3df975dcd142b98993448a4e8b1e Bug 1317697: Fix reference to undefined property warnings. r=mixedpuppy https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/ae35fa9b3e383a8c83809df8d3a40ba7af259201 Bug 1317697: Fix handling of more canceled responses. r=mixedpuppy https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/06724365d05824cd380c34f38fccf93dbf7cc9ed Bug 1317697: Lazily initialize Schemas.jsm. r=mixedpuppy https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1267d47eca93f2fc099cdc71ae9ba2bf2b87252f Bug 1317697: Split ExtensionContent.jsm into a stub process script. r=mixedpuppy https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0d80e105e2b5904fe882aaafe6b3f65b2dc04e75 Bug 1317697: Split extension page child and content script child code as much as possible. r=mixedpuppy https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/895164016ae91086fe04e1f5cafbaa3e46f3805d Bug 1317697: Remove things from ExtensionUtils that don't belong there. r=mixedpuppy

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/05f0e6fea003df5c3d81fd2254486394ef327cf7 Bug 1317697: Follow-up: Fix android test bustage. r=me

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9504ce3f418c https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ae35fa9b3e38 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/06724365d058 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1267d47eca93 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0d80e105e2b5 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/895164016ae9 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05f0e6fea003

This broke the Bugzilla Socorro Lens extension. Any suggestions how I can fix this are welcome on https://github.com/ashughes1/bugzilla-socorro-lens/issues/20.