Closed
Bug 901211
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Don't use static page size on ia64, sparc and mips
Categories
(Core :: Memory Allocator, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla25
People
(Reporter: glandium, Assigned: glandium)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [qa-])
Attachments
(1 file)
1.01 KB,
patch
|
justin.lebar+bug
:
review+
bajaj
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
ia64, sparc and mips have non 4k page sizes, and even a page size that varies depending on the kernel or maybe the cpu model.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #785361 -
Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #785361 -
Flags: review?(justin.lebar+bug) → review+
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ec6bcb45443c
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla25
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 785361 [details] [diff] [review] Don't use static page size on ia64, sparc and mips [Approval Request Comment] Requesting for beta because i'd like this in ESR24 so that I don't have to carry the patch around for the ESR. User impact if declined: Runtime failure because of page size size not matching what jemalloc expects on ia64, sparc and mips. Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Tested on a ia64, sparc and mips. Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): NPOTB. String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: None
Attachment #785361 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #785361 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta+
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/fc0020792338
status-firefox24:
--- → fixed
status-firefox25:
--- → fixed
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
This is the case on powerpc as well. Please add it to the list. Note that this is a terrible design decision to begin with. I sincerely hope the code can be reworked to no longer make that assumption (or at least stick to something like "maximum" page size if that can help).
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
FWIW we saw a significant improvement on our whole-browser benchmarks when we switched to using a static page size. Trading that for breakage on our tier-three platforms doesn't seem "terrible" to me. I don't think we have any plans to get rid of this assumption for platforms where it's a correct assumption.
Assuming no verification needed here. Please add the verifyme keyword and remove the [qa-] whiteboard tag to request verification.
Whiteboard: [qa-]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•