Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use fuzzy-matching to improve cache hit rates with PostScriptEvaluator #18070

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Snuffleupagus
Copy link
Collaborator

@Snuffleupagus Snuffleupagus commented May 11, 2024

This improves performance, without any noticeable regressions when running gulp browsertest --noChrome locally on Windows.
Testing the new pr5134 test-case locally in the viewer:

  • With the master branch and isEvalSupported = true, page 2 renders in approx. 350 milliseconds.
  • With the master branch and isEvalSupported = false, page 2 renders in approx. 1550 milliseconds.
  • With this patch and isEvalSupported = false, page 2 renders in approx. 700 milliseconds.

Hence this obviously isn't enough to close the performance gap, but it may still be helpful.

@Snuffleupagus Snuffleupagus force-pushed the PostScriptEvaluator-fuzzy-cache branch 2 times, most recently from 952b07d to b354b3a Compare May 11, 2024 18:12
This improves performance, without any noticeable regressions when running `gulp browsertest --noChrome` locally on Windows.
Testing the new `pr5134` test-case locally in the viewer:
 - With the `master` branch and `isEvalSupported = true`, page 2 renders in approx. 350 milliseconds.
 - With the `master` branch and `isEvalSupported = false`, page 2 renders in approx. 1550 milliseconds.
 - With this patch and `isEvalSupported = false`, page 2 renders in approx. 700 milliseconds.

Hence this obviously isn't enough to close the performance gap, but it *may* still be helpful.
@Snuffleupagus Snuffleupagus force-pushed the PostScriptEvaluator-fuzzy-cache branch from b354b3a to ec6b346 Compare June 5, 2024 12:37
@mozilla mozilla deleted a comment from moz-tools-bot Jun 5, 2024
@mozilla mozilla deleted a comment from moz-tools-bot Jun 5, 2024
@mozilla mozilla deleted a comment from moz-tools-bot Jun 5, 2024
@mozilla mozilla deleted a comment from moz-tools-bot Jun 5, 2024
@moz-tools-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

From: Bot.io (Windows)


Received

Command cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0

Live output at: http://54.193.163.58:8877/382315f0624ec58/output.txt

@moz-tools-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

From: Bot.io (Linux m4)


Received

Command cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0

Live output at: http://54.241.84.105:8877/4cdbf6b9625ca96/output.txt

@moz-tools-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

From: Bot.io (Windows)


Failed

Full output at http://54.193.163.58:8877/382315f0624ec58/output.txt

Total script time: 44.16 mins

  • Unit tests: Passed
  • Integration Tests: FAILED
  • Regression tests: FAILED
  different ref/snapshot: 6

Image differences available at: http://54.193.163.58:8877/382315f0624ec58/reftest-analyzer.html#web=eq.log

@moz-tools-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

From: Bot.io (Linux m4)


Failed

Full output at http://54.241.84.105:8877/4cdbf6b9625ca96/output.txt

Total script time: 51.56 mins

  • Unit tests: FAILED
  • Integration Tests: FAILED
  • Regression tests: FAILED
  errors: 94
  different ref/snapshot: 23
  different first/second rendering: 1

Image differences available at: http://54.241.84.105:8877/4cdbf6b9625ca96/reftest-analyzer.html#web=eq.log

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants