Hi Alon, JS time is tricky especially in Chrome. I'll try to strip it down and get better numbers with D8.
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Alon Zakai wrote: > > No official benchmarks yet. But you can run the emscripten benchmark suite > with setting "0" which should be just compile time, almost no throughput. > > That looks like a valid way to measure wasm compile time. How did you > measure the JS time? > > If possible, links to examples of both, with those measurements, would be > helpful to see if it's something special in your codebase. > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Charles Vaughn <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Are there benchmarks for WASM parsing speed? >> >> >> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:39:59 PM UTC-7, Charles Vaughn wrote: >>> >>> I used console.time and console.timeEnd around the >>> wasm.instantiateModule call >>> >>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 1:32:51 PM UTC-7, Alon Zakai wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't know about chrome, but in firefox definitely wasm parsing >>>> should be massively faster than asm.js - it goes straight from binary to >>>> the JIT, so JS parsing is completely eliminated. However, if JIT time is >>>> large enough you might notice this less, as parsing and JITing are done >>>> together. >>>> >>>> How exactly did you measure this in firefox? You should see some web >>>> console output for compiling asm.js and wasm (which should include parsing >>>> and JIT) that can help. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Charles Vaughn <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've built my companies internal Emscripten oriented codebase with >>>>> Binaryen, resulting in an output of ~2MB. Benchmarking time spent to >>>>> compile the WebAssembly module in Chrome canary shows around 1 second. >>>>> While its not exactly the same (parse instead of compile), the script >>>>> streamer thread timing for the equivalent JS (~3.5MB) only takes around >>>>> 300ms. Using different versions of chrome doesn't seem to impact the >>>>> timing, and Firefox shows slightly faster, but not better than just JS >>>>> parse time. >>>>> >>>>> Is this expected to improve? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "emscripten-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
