From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 18:59:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 429371065670; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:59:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:59:09 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Dieter BSD Message-ID: <20110909185909.GA66131@freebsd.org> References: <20110909162537.183770@gmx.com> <20110909184653.GA64971@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110909184653.GA64971@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: excessive use of gettimeofday(2) and other syscalls X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:59:09 -0000 On Fri Sep 9 11, Alexander Best wrote: > On Fri Sep 9 11, Dieter BSD wrote: > > >> Firefox 5 and 6 has more gettimeofday call than 20000 per second on my > > >> amd64-8.2-stable box. > > > > > i don't see why chromium needs > > > to call gettimeofday(2) or any library function that triggers it more > > > than 3000 times a second. > > > > What the are web browsers doing that they "need" the clock > > so often? > > > > I suspect the answer is the same as why firefox uses significant amounts > > of CPU when it should be idle, why it uses memory without bound > > (I actually had to add ulimit to my shell's rc file :-( ), and > > so on. > > > > Using "links -g", > > "ktrace -di -tc -p6951; sleep 1; ktrace -C; kdump|wc -l" > > gives a typical count of 300-400, highest count seen: 1454. > > well that measurement is probably unfair. my measurements included all opened > tabs (~ 15), running plugins and extensions. if i disable all of those extra > stuff and use only a single tab, chromium produces less syscalls than links: > > 270 ...however sites such as facebook produce a much higher syscall peek under chromium. with only one tab opened with youtube.com in it, chromium has a typical syscall count of 700-2000. i guess this is due to stuff like js, html5 and friends. if i enable the flash plugins with only 1 single tab (youtube.com), the syscall count climbs to ~ 8000 with a peak at 19000 when youtube.com wasn't completely loaded. so the high syscall count is not only chromiums fault, but a combination of chromium, flash and the linuxulator. i believe further linuxulator improvements might reduce syscalls in this scenario. also with chromium 15, the syscall count is supposed to drop quite noticably (as mentioned in a previous message). cheers. alex > > cheers. > alex > > > > > What we need, is a sanely written web browser that has the > > features we need. Unfortunately the last time I checked, > > links and dillo both lacked features needed for online > > shopping/banking.