5 ms·

Welcome back! Fair warning, legacy add-ons can perform worse under multi-process Firefox, since any synchronous APIs now require cross-process locking. To the g

Welcome back! Fair warning, legacy add-ons can perform worse under multi-process Firefox, since any synchronous APIs now require cross-process locking. To the greatest extent possible, try to limit yourself to add-ons badged with "Compatible with Firefox 57+" on addons.mozilla.org, which are guaranteed work well under Electrolysis. Also, get ready for Firefox 57. Just one example, in one benchmark, but the last data point on the right is accurate: https://screenshots.firefox.com/1DYGktRBpiIJBc7T/arewefastyet.com https://screenshots.firefox.com/1DYGktRBpiIJBc7T/arewefastye...

kibwen 9y ago
What particular change is responsible for the performance improvement seen in that benchmark? Not anything related to Quantum/Servo surely; I expect those benchmarks to reflect Javascript performance exclusively, and I haven't heard anything in a long time from Mozilla regarding Spidermonkey improvements.
- callahad 9y ago
  The change in that benchmark was from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1369140 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1369140, as part of the Quantum Flow (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum/Flow https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum/Flow) effort.
- cmrx64 9y ago
  That particular benchmark stresses DOM and layout performance, that test just programatically clicks all the delete buttons in the page under test.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  There's been a steady march of performance improvements in Spidermonkey, though they haven't gotten very much press. They've been rearchitecting most of the inline caches so there's more sharing between the baseline and optimizing compiler and less in the way of performance cliffs. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1259927 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1259927 and its dependencies (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1259927&hide_resolved=0 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=12599... for the dependency view). Things like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140 led to significant improvements to the sort of megamorphic code you commonly see in frameworks (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140#c14 shows 25% improvements on Ember benchmarks). This work has been ongoing; a bunch of it landed in 53, more in 54, and more has been landing since. What makes it a bit harder to advertise is that it's aiming at reducing performance cliffs and improving the chance that real-life code lands on fast paths, not on improving the performance of those already-fast paths. WebAssembly is where the "make the fast bits faster" action is, mostly.
clumsysmurf 9y ago
I looked for an ad-blocker badged "Compatible with Firefox 57+" and noticed ABP and uBlock Origin didn't have this badge. I was hoping FF would get something like Safari's Content-Blocking Rules. For such a common use case its an area ripe for optimization.
- pix64 9y ago
  There is a webextension version of ublock origin. I'm not entirely sure ff 54 supports all the needed APIs. uBlock0.webext.xpi @ https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.12.4 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.12.4 Edit: I've disabled the addon signing requirement and all seems to be working. Hopefully it gets on the AMO soon.
- bwat48 9y ago
  ublock will work fine with e10s. It's not a webextension yet, but it is e10s compatible already
  - hendersoon 9y ago
    Firefox 57 will no longer support XUL extensions at all. It's due to be released in November 2017.
    - bwat48 9y ago
      ublock is actively maintained, and afaik they have been working on a webextensions version, so I assume they'll be ready by then if not soon after. In the meantime ublock works fine and is e10s compatible.
newman314 9y ago
Is there a way to search for only 57+ addons? I took a quick gander and didn't see anything.
- buovjaga 9y ago
  Yep: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/firefox57 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/firefox57
perlwle 9y ago
With 30+ extensions installed, It would be nice to list incompatible extensions in the about:addons page. From about:support page, I see Multiprocess Windows 0/1 (Disabled by add-ons)
- nachtigall 9y ago
  You might want to install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter available from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compat...
  - perlwle 9y ago
    thanks for recommending this. It lists dozens of incompatible installed add-ons such as cookie monster, Live Http Header, UserAgent Switcher, Vimporator etc.
sciurus 9y ago
I wish there was an easy way to see which of my currently-installed addons are not compatible with Firefox 57+, instead of having to look at which I have installed and searching for each of them individually on addons.mozilla.org. I did search and it looks like HTTPS Everywhere, LastPass, and RescueTime aren't compatible. Privacy Badger is compatible, which may satisfy people looking for an ad blocker.
- callahad 9y ago
  Try out Firefox 55 (Beta or Developer Edition). It puts a big "Legacy" badge next to each add-on that is not a WebExtension in about:addons.
  - hendersoon 9y ago
    Hah, every one of my addons is legacy. FireGestures, LastPass, Session Manager, Tab Mix Plus, and uBlock Origin. LastPass and uBlock Origin have Chrome versions so I have some degree of confidence they will be ported over. FireGestures is absolutely essential to me, and no confidence there. Once Mozilla stops supporting XUL extensions I guess I'll use a Firefox fork or switch to Vivaldi. After... geez... 13 years of using Firefox. They finally forced me away. Hopefully Vivaldi supports customizable mouse chord gestures by then.
    - callahad 9y ago
      There are already several gesture add-ons that are compatible with Firefox 57 and beyond: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/search/?q=mouse+gestures&tag=firefox57 https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/search/?q=mouse+gestures&... Foxy Gestures in particular claims to be deeply inspired by FireGestures: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/foxy-gestures/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/foxy-gestures/
      - hendersoon 9y ago
        I'm dubious, because after nearly a decade, Chrome has exactly zero mouse gesture addons that I consider remotely usable. None of them work consistently. Not a single one is comparable to FireGestures. But thanks for the link to Foxy Gestures-- I'll give it a shot! Edit: Tried out Foxy Gestures. Not usable. First, no support for mouse button chording. Second, every single gesture pops up the right-click menu. Third, gestures don't work maybe 75% of the time-- difficult to tell if that's due to the right click menu popping up or if it's just plain broken. Seems like it's this bug at fault. Mouse gesture Webextensions are broken on MacOS and Linux. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360278 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360278

kibwen 9y ago

What particular change is responsible for the performance improvement seen in that benchmark? Not anything related to Quantum/Servo surely; I expect those benchmarks to reflect Javascript performance exclusively, and I haven't heard anything in a long time from Mozilla regarding Spidermonkey improvements.

callahad 9y ago
The change in that benchmark was from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1369140 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1369140, as part of the Quantum Flow (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum/Flow https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum/Flow) effort.
cmrx64 9y ago
That particular benchmark stresses DOM and layout performance, that test just programatically clicks all the delete buttons in the page under test.
bzbarsky 9y ago
There's been a steady march of performance improvements in Spidermonkey, though they haven't gotten very much press. They've been rearchitecting most of the inline caches so there's more sharing between the baseline and optimizing compiler and less in the way of performance cliffs. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1259927 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1259927 and its dependencies (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1259927&hide_resolved=0 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=12599... for the dependency view). Things like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140 led to significant improvements to the sort of megamorphic code you commonly see in frameworks (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328140#c14 shows 25% improvements on Ember benchmarks). This work has been ongoing; a bunch of it landed in 53, more in 54, and more has been landing since. What makes it a bit harder to advertise is that it's aiming at reducing performance cliffs and improving the chance that real-life code lands on fast paths, not on improving the performance of those already-fast paths. WebAssembly is where the "make the fast bits faster" action is, mostly.

clumsysmurf 9y ago

I looked for an ad-blocker badged "Compatible with Firefox 57+" and noticed ABP and uBlock Origin didn't have this badge. I was hoping FF would get something like Safari's Content-Blocking Rules. For such a common use case its an area ripe for optimization.

pix64 9y ago
There is a webextension version of ublock origin. I'm not entirely sure ff 54 supports all the needed APIs. uBlock0.webext.xpi @ https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.12.4 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.12.4 Edit: I've disabled the addon signing requirement and all seems to be working. Hopefully it gets on the AMO soon.
bwat48 9y ago
ublock will work fine with e10s. It's not a webextension yet, but it is e10s compatible already
- hendersoon 9y ago
  Firefox 57 will no longer support XUL extensions at all. It's due to be released in November 2017.
  - bwat48 9y ago
    ublock is actively maintained, and afaik they have been working on a webextensions version, so I assume they'll be ready by then if not soon after. In the meantime ublock works fine and is e10s compatible.

newman314 9y ago

Is there a way to search for only 57+ addons? I took a quick gander and didn't see anything.

buovjaga 9y ago
Yep: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/firefox57 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/firefox57

perlwle 9y ago

With 30+ extensions installed, It would be nice to list incompatible extensions in the about:addons page. From about:support page, I see Multiprocess Windows 0/1 (Disabled by add-ons)

nachtigall 9y ago
You might want to install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter available from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compat...
- perlwle 9y ago
  thanks for recommending this. It lists dozens of incompatible installed add-ons such as cookie monster, Live Http Header, UserAgent Switcher, Vimporator etc.

sciurus 9y ago

I wish there was an easy way to see which of my currently-installed addons are not compatible with Firefox 57+, instead of having to look at which I have installed and searching for each of them individually on addons.mozilla.org. I did search and it looks like HTTPS Everywhere, LastPass, and RescueTime aren't compatible. Privacy Badger is compatible, which may satisfy people looking for an ad blocker.

callahad 9y ago
Try out Firefox 55 (Beta or Developer Edition). It puts a big "Legacy" badge next to each add-on that is not a WebExtension in about:addons.
- hendersoon 9y ago
  Hah, every one of my addons is legacy. FireGestures, LastPass, Session Manager, Tab Mix Plus, and uBlock Origin. LastPass and uBlock Origin have Chrome versions so I have some degree of confidence they will be ported over. FireGestures is absolutely essential to me, and no confidence there. Once Mozilla stops supporting XUL extensions I guess I'll use a Firefox fork or switch to Vivaldi. After... geez... 13 years of using Firefox. They finally forced me away. Hopefully Vivaldi supports customizable mouse chord gestures by then.
  - callahad 9y ago
    There are already several gesture add-ons that are compatible with Firefox 57 and beyond: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/search/?q=mouse+gestures&tag=firefox57 https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/search/?q=mouse+gestures&... Foxy Gestures in particular claims to be deeply inspired by FireGestures: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/foxy-gestures/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/foxy-gestures/
    - hendersoon 9y ago
      I'm dubious, because after nearly a decade, Chrome has exactly zero mouse gesture addons that I consider remotely usable. None of them work consistently. Not a single one is comparable to FireGestures. But thanks for the link to Foxy Gestures-- I'll give it a shot! Edit: Tried out Foxy Gestures. Not usable. First, no support for mouse button chording. Second, every single gesture pops up the right-click menu. Third, gestures don't work maybe 75% of the time-- difficult to tell if that's due to the right click menu popping up or if it's just plain broken. Seems like it's this bug at fault. Mouse gesture Webextensions are broken on MacOS and Linux. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360278 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360278