RESOLVED FIXED160784
[JSC] Revert most of r203808
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160784
Summary [JSC] Revert most of r203808
Benjamin Poulain
Reported 2016-08-11 15:10:39 PDT
[JSC] Revert most of r203808
Attachments
Patch (41.29 KB, patch)
2016-08-11 15:15 PDT, Benjamin Poulain
no flags
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 1 2016-08-11 15:15:45 PDT
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 2 2016-08-11 16:27:25 PDT
Comment on attachment 285860 [details] Patch r=me Ben mentioned that he saw time spent in madvise using fastMalloc. I think I can probably fix that with a little dedicated work.
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 3 2016-08-11 17:23:52 PDT
Comment on attachment 285860 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 285860 Committed r204393: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/204393>
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 4 2016-08-11 17:23:56 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Saam Barati
Comment 5 2016-08-18 20:13:24 PDT
It looks like this progressed JetStream as expected by around 1%.
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 6 2016-08-19 09:44:27 PDT
Can you link to the result? Was it MacBook Air?
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 7 2017-05-08 15:26:58 PDT
I tested an up-to-date variant of this patch on a 2012 MacBook Air today and it appeared to be performance-neutral: Benchmark report for Octane on admins-MacBook-Air-2 (MacBookAir5,2). VMs tested: "Baseline" at /Volumes/Big/ggaren/OpenSource/WebKitBuildBaseline/Release/jsc "Patch" at /Volumes/Big/ggaren/OpenSource/WebKitBuild/Release/jsc (r215991) Collected 4 samples per benchmark/VM, with 4 VM invocations per benchmark. Emitted a call to gc() between sample measurements. Used 1 benchmark iteration per VM invocation for warm-up. Used the jsc-specific preciseTime() function to get microsecond-level timing. Reporting benchmark execution times with 95% confidence intervals in milliseconds. Baseline Patch encrypt 0.21080+-0.01634 0.20457+-0.00450 might be 1.0304x faster decrypt 3.53045+-0.03419 ? 3.57919+-0.15867 ? might be 1.0138x slower deltablue x2 0.17226+-0.01387 ? 0.17273+-0.00168 ? earley 0.36054+-0.00550 ? 0.36670+-0.01024 ? might be 1.0171x slower boyer 6.06766+-0.16303 6.01835+-0.14738 navier-stokes x2 5.94829+-0.05020 5.94349+-0.03419 raytrace x2 1.08885+-0.03810 ? 1.09791+-0.03960 ? richards x2 0.11626+-0.00874 ? 0.11770+-0.00836 ? might be 1.0124x slower splay x2 0.44481+-0.00488 ? 0.45395+-0.01899 ? might be 1.0205x slower regexp x2 25.87122+-1.85551 ? 25.87526+-0.73672 ? pdfjs x2 53.79756+-1.25736 53.56009+-0.63223 mandreel x2 73.84762+-3.91344 ? 78.50292+-18.05527 ? might be 1.0630x slower gbemu x2 52.98956+-11.26955 48.84833+-1.53337 might be 1.0848x faster closure 0.71097+-0.00467 ? 0.71797+-0.02552 ? jquery 9.94422+-0.20686 9.89728+-0.44068 box2d x2 13.90082+-1.11011 ? 14.98441+-2.20534 ? might be 1.0780x slower zlib x2 477.03310+-45.25841 ? 480.52492+-15.20169 ? typescript x2 1294.37280+-685.71484 1043.26562+-40.76296 might be 1.2407x faster <geometric> 7.29211+-0.33598 7.25063+-0.10316 might be 1.0057x faster Benchmark report for AsmBench on admins-MacBook-Air-2 (MacBookAir5,2). VMs tested: "Baseline" at /Volumes/Big/ggaren/OpenSource/WebKitBuildBaseline/Release/jsc "Patch" at /Volumes/Big/ggaren/OpenSource/WebKitBuild/Release/jsc (r215991) Collected 4 samples per benchmark/VM, with 4 VM invocations per benchmark. Emitted a call to gc() between sample measurements. Used 1 benchmark iteration per VM invocation for warm-up. Used the jsc-specific preciseTime() function to get microsecond-level timing. Reporting benchmark execution times with 95% confidence intervals in milliseconds. Baseline Patch bigfib.cpp 702.9005+-25.5903 678.8968+-63.2468 might be 1.0354x faster cray.c 513.4209+-25.0330 ? 521.9055+-30.1923 ? might be 1.0165x slower dry.c 618.8755+-185.6885 ? 637.2598+-169.5742 ? might be 1.0297x slower FloatMM.c 939.8940+-14.4910 ? 940.7554+-15.4689 ? gcc-loops.cpp 4916.3853+-44.1230 4843.4827+-50.9797 might be 1.0151x faster n-body.c 1106.8958+-13.9958 1105.8504+-13.3921 Quicksort.c 511.9797+-41.7437 ? 512.0046+-24.8828 ? stepanov_container.cpp 4315.5320+-224.2974 4297.3511+-66.7650 Towers.c 300.1309+-7.9935 296.7681+-12.0559 might be 1.0113x faster <geometric> 968.3045+-36.8348 966.3857+-33.1399 might be 1.0020x faster
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 8 2017-05-08 15:29:16 PDT
(Also neutral on Mac Pro.)
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 9 2017-05-08 15:39:08 PDT
(In reply to Geoffrey Garen from comment #7) > I tested an up-to-date variant of this patch on a 2012 MacBook Air today and > it appeared to be performance-neutral: Awesome! Did you have to change the allocator?
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 10 2017-05-08 16:11:05 PDT
> Did you have to change the allocator? I didn't end up changing the allocator. My plan was to speed up the allocator by profiling -- but then I couldn't reproduce the regression. This might mean that some other changes since last year have resolved the issue -- but I guess there's still a chance that my computer just doesn't agree with the bot. I'm going to re-test in-browser.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.