1128765 - Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect)

Description

[Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel]]

Attachment: Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

This is the same idea as bug 1124847, but for a different set of textures. I haven't checked if the D3D9 version also causes write-combined mappings but it's probably worth tracking these anyways.

Comment 1

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

Don't we need an equivalent to D3D11TextureReporter to actually report this memory?

Comment 2

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

Comment on attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]
Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

Review of attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Needs a D3D9TextureReporter implementation in gfxWindowsPlatform.cpp in order for the memory counts to be reported.

Comment 3

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/402d8c09617f

Comment 4

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/402d8c09617f

Comment 5

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

Attachment: Add some more reporters

Add some more (temporary) reporters to help narrow this down. r=jrmuizel from irc.

Comment 6

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b62993d69b0c

Comment 7

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b62993d69b0c

Comment 8

[Ralph Giles (:rillian)]

Comment on attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]
Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: MSE
[User impact if declined]: Less consistent testing, harder to report memory issues.
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Landed on m-c.
[Risks and why]: This just adds new reporter hooks for the about:memory diagnostic. Should be low risk.
[String/UUID change made/needed]: None.

Requesting uplift for both patches on this bug to get a better handle on our memory issues with MSE, HTML5 video, and YouTube.

Comment 9

[Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel]]

Comment on attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]
Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

It might be wise to get this all the way into beta

Comment 10

[Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo)]

Comment on attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]
Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory

I agree that it's important to track memory usage wrt gfx and our MSE implementation. Aurora+

Jeff - I don't think this is required for Beta as MSE has been disabled in 36. Please let me know if there is another reason to get this into Beta 8.

Comment 11

[Ralph Giles (:rillian)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/f8c1c4e16b21
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/454d1d1a58bd

Comment 12

[Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel]]

(In reply to Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo) from comment #10)
> Comment on attachment 8558225 [details] [diff] [review]
> Track D3D9 media shared texture usage in about:memory
> 
> I agree that it's important to track memory usage wrt gfx and our MSE
> implementation. Aurora+
> 
> Jeff - I don't think this is required for Beta as MSE has been disabled in
> 36. Please let me know if there is another reason to get this into Beta 8.

At least one of the memory bugs that we're seeing happens without MSE so it would still be somewhat useful, we could live without it though knowing that 36 won't have MSE.

Comment 13

[Guilherme Lima]

I'm seeing on about:memory
0.00 MB ── d3d9-shared-texture
3.96 MB ── d3d9-shared-textures
bug?

Comment 14

[Eric Rahm [:erahm]]

(In reply to Guilherme Lima from comment #13)
> I'm seeing on about:memory
> 0.00 MB ── d3d9-shared-texture
> 3.96 MB ── d3d9-shared-textures
> bug?

Yes this feels like a bug. :jrmuizel it looks like there are now two reporters claiming to report the same thing (one as d3d9-shared-texture, the other as d3d9-shared-textures). If these are distinct can we go with a different name and update the descriptions? If they're the same can we combine them?

Comment 15

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

> If they're the same can we combine them?

I don't think they're the same. I filed bug 1139252.

Comment 16

[Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel]]

Indeed