Last Comment Bug 640457 - (mslim-fx5+) [meta] memory size reductions for Firefox 5+
(mslim-fx5+)
: [meta] memory size reductions for Firefox 5+
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
: footprint, meta
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: General (show other bugs)
: unspecified
: All All
: -- normal with 31 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it
:
Mentors:
Depends on: 629606 106357 436150 618031 626932 629601 630447 630738 631045 632012 633427 634156 ObjectShrink 638075 640763 641663 643651 657140 658386 658672 661068 663616 664067 665404
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-03-09 20:23 PST by Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11)
Modified: 2013-07-19 09:21 PDT (History)
94 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments

Description Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-03-09 20:23:49 PST
This is a follow-on bug from bug 598466 (and bug 615199, which blocked it), which covered various memory size reductions and problems in Firefox 4.  The following as-yet-unresolved bugs were carried over from that bug: bug 618031, bug 632012, bug 629601, bug 630447, bug 630738, bug 631045.

Note that this bug is intended to be about slimming down memory usage, eg. reducing the size of data structures.  It's not about leaks and quasi-leaks;  bug 640452 is tracking those.
Comment 1 The 8472 2011-03-09 22:45:12 PST
Do we have a bug for better accounting in about:memory? My current session uses 960MB private bytes, but the various allocation pools only account for about 200MB. If we could get a larger coverage it would make it easier to pin down where we can get the most savings.
Comment 2 Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-03-10 01:06:06 PST
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do we have a bug for better accounting in about:memory?

Bug 633653.
Comment 3 Ed Morley [:emorley] 2011-03-10 04:54:50 PST
I feel that it would be useful to have a bug along the lines of:

"Investigate why automated testing did not detect a 200-250% increase in per
tab memory usage between 3.6.12 and Fx 4b4 / fill any gaps in testing"

(ie: why all the regressions from bug 598466 managed to slip past and making sure it doesn't happen again)

Is there one already for this?
Comment 4 DB Cooper 2011-03-23 12:44:06 PDT
Bug 643651 is a good (extreme) example of FF4's comparatively large memory use on image heavy pages (~1.5GB in this example, with peak memory > 2GB). Should it be added to this meta bug?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643651
Comment 5 Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-03-23 13:21:35 PDT
DB Cooper: yes!  I've added it to this bug's list of blockers.
Comment 6 Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-04-12 18:42:30 PDT
Now that we have even shorter release cycles than the originally planned 3 month ones, I've changed this to be about Firefox 5 and on.  If this bug gets too unwieldy I'll close it out and start a new one.
Comment 7 Reece H. Dunn 2011-04-13 11:51:49 PDT
There are various bugs relating to very large memory consumption when loading large (e.g. 1-2MB) XML files: bug 106357, bug 291643 and bug 436150 (maybe others as well).
Comment 8 Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-04-13 17:31:53 PDT
Reece: thanks for the info.  I ended up marking bug 160357 and bug 436150 as duplicates of bug 291643, because the latter has a good analysis.
Comment 9 Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on vacation until July 11) 2011-07-24 22:56:33 PDT
This tracking bug has reached the end of its useful life.  All the still 
open blocking bugs have had their whiteboards marked with "MemShrink", and 
so will be tracked that way by the MemShrink project.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.