With [D193511](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D193511), the problem did not happen for me. But it is not correct fix for wgpu. :nical wants a correct fix. :nical. > We can't drop a texture view while the JS object still exists, so we can't take this patch in its current state. That said wgpu internally does the same thing: textures have a list of texture views and when destroy is called on a texture, the internal resource of its views are internally removed. ErichDonGubler: it would be good to double check that this system is working as expected and more generally instrument the number and size of all hal resources over time. Maybe we are incorrectly tracking the views of a texture or maybe the number of texture views is just a correlation.
Bug 1863872 Comment 42 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
With [D193511](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D193511), the problem did not happen for me. But it is not correct fix for wgpu. :nical wants a correct fix in wgpu. The following is a comment from :nical. > We can't drop a texture view while the JS object still exists, so we can't take this patch in its current state. That said wgpu internally does the same thing: textures have a list of texture views and when destroy is called on a texture, the internal resource of its views are internally removed. ErichDonGubler: it would be good to double check that this system is working as expected and more generally instrument the number and size of all hal resources over time. Maybe we are incorrectly tracking the views of a texture or maybe the number of texture views is just a correlation.