On 08/11/2017 04:38 AM, Sean Stangl wrote:
The perf-html project is good enough now for me to use it in place of Tracelogger.
perf-html is not available in the JS shell, and it is not as precise, even with smaller sampling rate, you will get more overhead than the tracelogger.
An alternative to the complete removal, would be to tune perf-html to have labels for each location where tracelogger can be enabled today.
I would also like to get rid of Iongraph. We should see if we can expose more JIT information to the perf-html team.
I still rely frequently on Iongraph within the JS shell, I would not like to see this one disappear.
I once tried to expose the exported JSON to the devtools, but this caused more pain than anything. We can try to have a buffer storing the log of the compilation, like I did previously with the devtools, but without calling back into JS. Then, for perf-html this might cause transfer/recording size issues.
Also, as much good as I think of perf-html, we should be careful of what we expose in perf-html. Remember that all users of perf-html are not Jit experts, and that even exposing small information such as bailouts can back-fire badly with a large number of false-positive bug reports.
I do not think we should expose the content presented by Iongraph in perf-html. Maybe we should focus on a synthesized version, such as the information about Jit optimizations, or displaying the speed-up that each Jit compiled code are running at.
-- Nicolas B. Pierron _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
