Re: Notification for new navigation timing entries

On 2/12/15 7:15 PM, Nat Duca wrote:
> Most of these tools operate in a "record, do something, stop recording
> and get events" mode. The idea with those approaches is that you can
> buffer cheaply, and only do expensive work during the get events stage.

Right, I understand that.

I guess the fundamental assumption here is that saving all the 
information needed to reify a PerformanceEntry later in a C++ struct or 
something is cheaper than actually creating a PerformanceEntry object, 
right?  But is that necessarily true?  I suppose you can play games with 
some sort of rarely-reallocing slab allocator deal for the structs that 
are harder to do for PerformanceEntry objects...

> But, if an observer is registered, if we do this wrong, then we can get
> in a situation where we're create PerformanceEntry objects thousands of
> times a frame. My hope is we could avoid that situation.

I guess what confuses me is what part of PerformanceEntry object 
allocation is necessarily expensive.

To be concrete, in the two cases I know best, Gecko and Servo, the 
situation is as follows:

Servo needs to allocate the objects probably out of SpiderMonkey's GC 
arena.  So it's equivalent to the allocation of any other JS object; the 
main issue is probably the GC pressure.

Gecko allocates PerformanceEntry objects via |new| in C++.  There's the 
malloc overhead, but no interaction with SpiderMonkey and no GC 
pressure.  This is assuming that we're not immediately sticking them in 
a JS array, of course.

I guess both could try to do something more clever if they could create 
the PerformanceEntry objects lazily, but the clever thing may not end up 
that much faster than calling |new|.

> Talking to our v8 peeps, we can't take plain array types and lazily
> create them.

Yes, I agree, if the object is an actual JS array then you can't do the 
lazy thing very easily and then you do get GC pressure.

> As I think about it, maybe there shouldn't be any index/etc getters and
> only an AsSequence(). Eg:
> interface LazyPerformanceEntryList {
>      bool HasEntryNamed(string);
>      PerformanceEntryList AsList();
> }
> That way you have to explicitly ask for the entries.

This is sounding a lot more likely to not seem crazy to web developers, 
yes.  ;)

> But such a direction change hinges on you buying my argument that the
> observer callbacks should have overhead only proportional to the
> callback, rather than the size of the event list being delivered.

I don't think you can entirely avoid the latter, just because you still 
have to store the data and whatnot.  We're just talking about the size 
of the constants.

But yes, I can buy wanting to reduce GC pressure and wanting to keep the 
constant for adding to the buffer as low as possible.


Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 01:26:10 UTC