Windows 10 will reach EOS (end of support) on October 14, 2025. For more information, see this article.

Avatar for Username

Cerca nel supporto

Attenzione alle mail truffa. Mozilla non chiederà mai di chiamare o mandare messaggi a un numero di telefono o di inviare dati personali. Segnalare qualsiasi attività sospetta utilizzando l'opzione “Segnala abuso”.

Ulteriori informazioni

Questa discussione è chiusa e archiviata. Inserire una nuova richiesta se occorre aiuto.

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 risposta
  • 1 ha questo problema
  • 4 visualizzazioni
  • Ultima risposta di Paul

SuMo Bot
SuMo Bot
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.

Tutte le risposte (2)

Paul
Paul
  • Top 10 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.

SuMo Bot
SuMo Bot Utente che ha posto la domanda
more options

This question has been locked because the original author has deleted their account. While you can no longer post new replies, the existing content remains available for reference.