Open Bug 1441737 Opened 6 years ago Updated 2 years ago

Consider having Gecko and JS atoms be the same thing

Categories

(Core :: XPCOM, enhancement)

Product:
Core
Component:
XPCOM
Type:
enhancement

Tracking

()

People

(Reporter: bzbarsky, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Whiteboard: [MemShrink:P2] [overhead:20k]) 

I'm really not sure how this would work for static atoms, mind you...  The data in bug 1441292 shows that there is significant overlap between JS and XPCOM atoms.
bz, do you have any idea of what kind of memory savings this would give us?
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Whiteboard: [MemShrink]
Not offhand.  Would have to look at the actual atom strings involved, plus the allocation strategies are pretty different for JS and XPCOM atoms, I expect.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Whiteboard: [MemShrink] → [MemShrink:P2]
Guessing a lower bound is 20k per process.
Whiteboard: [MemShrink:P2] → [MemShrink:P2] [overhead:20k]
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.