Closed
Bug 531225
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Workers: Share strings across thread boundary
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
status1.9.2 | --- | .2-fixed |
People
(Reporter: bent.mozilla, Assigned: bent.mozilla)
References
Details
(Keywords: intermittent-failure, Whiteboard: [evang-wanted-3.6] )
Attachments
(2 files)
19.17 KB,
patch
|
jst
:
review+
jst
:
superreview+
beltzner
:
approval1.9.2.2+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
935 bytes,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
We're copying now, and it's unfortunate. We should share while we can.
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: review?(jst)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
jst, review ping!
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: review?(jst)
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: review+
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 414680 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, v1 Duh, sorry for the way too long delay :( r=jst
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bdb83d642185
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
How safe would this be for 3.6.x? Could be a big perf improvement for a lot of people writing JS stuff out there.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > How safe would this be for 3.6.x? Could be a big perf improvement for a lot of > people writing JS stuff out there. I can't think of any reason this would be risky, so after it bakes for a bit I'd be all for backporting. The code hasn't really changed much since 3.5.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 414680 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, v1 I'd like to take this on branch since it avoids copies of data passed by workers. Pretty much every single test for workers exercises this code so we'd have known pretty fast if this change had broken anything.
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: approval1.9.2.2?
Updated•14 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [evang-wanted-3.6]
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 414680 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, v1 a1922=beltzner, man, I get nervous taking patches this big on the branch
Attachment #414680 -
Flags: approval1.9.2.2? → approval1.9.2.2+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/ae89af4f7cd0
status1.9.2:
--- → .2-fixed
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8) > http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/ae89af4f7cd0 This appears to have caused the persistent leak on Windows mochitests; see mozilla-1.9.2 tinderboxen: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1272 bytes during test execution (threshold set at 484 bytes) TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 159 instances of nsStringBuffer with size 8 bytes each (1272 bytes total) A similar persistent leak shows up on trunk builds on tryserver, though it doesn't get reported on the mozilla-central tinderboxes for some reason. I did a tryserver build with this patch reverted, and confirmed that the leak disappeared.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
Yeah, I have no idea why this doesn't bite m-c. Some sort of shutdown ordering thing? Maybe we GC more on m-c than on branch? Who knows.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Pushed leak fix: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/59622926cd6b http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/a459d11674b4
Updated•12 years ago
|
Keywords: intermittent-failure
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [evang-wanted-3.6] [orange] → [evang-wanted-3.6]
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•