User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101206 Firefox/4.0b8pre Build Identifier: In bug 598466 comment 116, it was ascertained that bug 558451, or more specifically, the following changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/tracemonkey/rev/e5958cd4a135 ...caused an approximate 0.9MB/tab memory usage increase when following the STR in bug 598466 comment 13. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Using: Win7x64; win32 Minefield builds. Setup: 1. Create a clean profile. 2. Open profile using nightly, disable all addons, turn off hardware acceleration & image discarding (to reduce other variables, but still occurs if they are on), restart nightly for changes to take effect. 3. Go to http://www.cad-comic.com/cad and middle mouse click on "random" 90 times to open a selection of tabs. 4. With prefs set to save tabs on exit, close nightly. 5. Make a copy of profile, so original not overwritten when testing each build. Testing: 1. Open previously saved profile in nightly to be tested. 2. Ctrl+tab through all tabs to force them to load fully. 3. Wait 30 secs for GC/random processing to settle. 4. Measure private/working/virtual memory usage in MB using Sysinternals process explorer Actual Results: Memory usage using Tracemonkey branch: (private/working/virtual, in MB for 90 tabs) 2010-08-30--nightly: 787/812/974 2010-08-29--tryserver rev. e5958cd4a135: 777/802/958 2010-08-29--tryserver rev. eae8350841be: 697/723/887 2010-08-29--nightly: 691/715/875 ~80MB increase for 90 tabs = ~0.9MB/tab Caused by: http://hg.mozilla.org/tracemonkey/rev/e5958cd4a135
7 years ago
I wonder if the root cause of this is bug 610070.
brendan, jorendorff, can you guys give us a first cut estimate of what's going on here? I'm thinking you might already have all the info we need. Basically, what I think we want to know is: 1. Was the memory increase entirely expected and intentional (~0.9MB per tab in the test setup of comment 0)? If yes, we are done here. 2. Is the unused space Julian discovered in bug 610070 intentional, or do we want to work to trim that?
Using a different 68 tab profile (same STR otherwise) in the same bug (bug 598466 comment 94), the increase was 70-75MB, which equates to ~1.1MB/tab, so it would appear 0.9MB/tab is a fairly conservative/low-end estimate - if that helps at all.
The increase I expect from that patch is an additional 6 words or so per object that would previously have shared a scope. I would not have expected the number or size of any hash tables to increase. Brendan, do you agree?
(In reply to comment #4) > The increase I expect from that patch is an additional 6 words or so per object > that would previously have shared a scope. I would not have expected the number > or size of any hash tables to increase. Could someone please check this using the test setup? I think the key data we want are (1) number of JSObjects live per page and (2) size comparison on the hash tables around this patch.
(In reply to comment #2) > > 2. Is the unused space Julian discovered in bug 610070 intentional, or do we > want to work to trim that? It looks unnecessary. See bug 610070 comment 8 for details.
(In reply to comment #4) > The increase I expect from that patch is an additional 6 words or so per object > that would previously have shared a scope. I would not have expected the number > or size of any hash tables to increase. > > Brendan, do you agree? See bug 610070' about to be fixed. Anything else is another bug to file. /be
A summary for blocker drivers: hopefully bug 610070 will completely fix this memory increase. It's ready to land but blocked by another blocker. Once it lands, hopefully Ed will be able to re-measure.
Per comment 8, provisionally adding bug 610070 as dependency. However, it's going to be hard to tell if bug 610070 landing has fixed the problem or not, unless someone takes the first known bad nightly and makes a try server build with that plus only the patch from bug 610070 and none of the other thousand changes in nightlies since (given that lots of other memory based changes/optimisations have occurred in that range). Therefore, once the issue blocking bug 610070 is resolved, can someone take: - mc rev e5958cd4a135 (first known bad) - bug 610070 patch - the blocker bug 619003 patch ...and make a opt win32 no tests tryserver build for me please, so I can tell for sure. Thanks!
Bug 619003 is fixed in tracemonkey. /be
(In reply to comment #9) > > Therefore, once the issue blocking bug 610070 is resolved, can someone take: > - mc rev e5958cd4a135 (first known bad) > - bug 610070 patch > - the blocker bug 619003 patch > ...and make a opt win32 no tests tryserver build for me please, so I can tell > for sure. I tried to do this, but it's difficult. e5958cd4a135 is old enough that applying the patch from 610070 is painful. Instead I've made you two builds, one without the bug 610070 patch, and one with that patch. (Bug 619003 was a blocker, but it just caused an obscure test failure, it shouldn't affect your testing.) Here's the version without the patch: http://firstname.lastname@example.org Here's the version with the patch: http://email@example.com Ed, can you compare them? I think you should be able to tell fairly accurately if we've got a ~0.9MB per-tab reduction. (Nb: at the time of writing they haven't yet been created, but tryserver tells me that's where they'll be once they finish building.)
Yeah I had a look at the patch and was thinking you might say that, given the number of inevitable changes that have been made in those areas since the older rev. I'll give the tryserver builds a go once they are finished - and as you say, since they are identical apart from patch, any usage difference should be both fairly obvious and also attributable purely to bug 610070. Thanks!
Using builds from comment 11... Without patch: 906/926/1101 ; repeat 915/935/1110 With patch: 837/858/1034 ; repeat 843/864/1050 Therefore patch from bug 610070 has saved ~70MB across 90 tabs = ~0.78MB/tab, which isn't quite 0.9MB/tab, but difference due to measurement fluctuations perhaps?
Maybe measurement fluctuations, or maybe there's a small increase still present. But I think it's good enough to declare victory in this bug. Thanks for doing the measurements!