We're calling on all EU-based Mozillians with iOS or iPadOS devices to help us monitor Apple’s new browser choice screens. Join the effort to hold Big Tech to account!

Avatar for Username

Kërkoni te Asistenca

Shmangni karremëzime gjoja asistence. S’do t’ju kërkojmë kurrë të bëni një thirrje apo të dërgoni tekst te një numër telefoni, apo të na jepni të dhëna personale. Ju lutemi, raportoni veprimtari të dyshimtë duke përdorur mundësinë “Raportoni Abuzim”.

Mësoni Më Tepër

Kjo rrjedhë është arkivuar. Ju lutemi, bëni një pyetje të re, nëse keni nevojë për ndihmë.

Wasm built with Emscripten >2.0 is 8 times slower to compile than WASM built with Emscripten 1.40.1 on Android phones RAM <=6GB

  • 1 përgjigje
  • 1 e ka hasur këtë problem
  • 2 parje
  • Përgjigjja më e re nga Paul

nancy59
nancy59
more options

with firefox defaut profile, WebAssembly.compile time of Wasm built with Emscripten >2.0 is 8,9s，while WASM built with Emscripten 1.40.1 is 1,2s, tested on Xiaomi K30(Ram= 6GB, 8 cores), firefox 96 beta. Can someone help on that? I set javascript.options.wasm_optimizingjit false and compile time for both the wasms is about 140ms compared to 100ms for Chromium 94. Refer to * When wasm bytecode arrives, we choose the compilation strategy based on * switches and on aspects of the code and the hardware. If switches allow * tiered compilation to happen (the normal case), the following logic applies. * * If the code is sufficiently large that tiered compilation would be beneficial * but not so large that it might blow our compiled code budget and make * compilation fail, we choose tiered compilation. Otherwise we go straight to * optimized code. it seems with default profile, the compile goes to "optimized code". is this reasonable? Then I observed the CPU used of wasm (Emscripten >2.0) compilation is 48%, while wasm (Emscripten 1.40.1) compilation is 100%, I guess wasm (Emscripten >2.0) compilation maybe only use one core. I don't which is the main cause? PS: SAMSUNG A51 (RAM 4G) has the same performance， but with some mobile phone >=8G, the compile time is about 100ms.

with firefox defaut profile, WebAssembly.compile time of Wasm built with Emscripten >2.0 is 8,9s，while WASM built with Emscripten 1.40.1 is 1,2s, tested on Xiaomi K30(Ram= 6GB, 8 cores), firefox 96 beta. Can someone help on that? I set javascript.options.wasm_optimizingjit false and compile time for both the wasms is about 140ms compared to 100ms for Chromium 94. Refer to [https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/wasm/WasmCompile.cpp * When wasm bytecode arrives, we choose the compilation strategy based on * switches and on aspects of the code and the hardware. If switches allow * tiered compilation to happen (the normal case), the following logic applies. * * If the code is sufficiently large that tiered compilation would be beneficial * but not so large that it might blow our compiled code budget and make * compilation fail, we choose tiered compilation. Otherwise we go straight to * optimized code.] it seems with default profile, the compile goes to "optimized code". is this reasonable? Then I observed the CPU used of wasm (Emscripten >2.0) compilation is 48%, while wasm (Emscripten 1.40.1) compilation is 100%, I guess wasm (Emscripten >2.0) compilation maybe only use one core. I don't which is the main cause? PS: SAMSUNG A51 (RAM 4G) has the same performance， but with some mobile phone >=8G, the compile time is about 100ms.

Krejt Përgjigjet (1)

Paul
Paul
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
more options

Hi

It looks like this is being looked into at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1747265

You can follow progress on this and add comments there.