Closed Bug 712835 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

Add a memory reporter for the nsAtomTable


(Core :: XPCOM, defect)

Not set





(Reporter: n.nethercote, Assigned: n.nethercote)


(Whiteboard: [MemShrink])


(3 files)

DMD says it's reasonable prominent:

 Unreported: 1 block(s) in record 9 of 17967
  262,144 bytes (262,144 requested / 0 slop) 
  0.25% of the heap (7.19% cumulative unreported)
    at 0x402A063: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:263)
    by 0x403C0A4: moz_malloc (mozalloc.cpp:113)
    by 0x7A4126C: PL_DHashAllocTable (pldhash.cpp:114)
    by 0x7A41AAB: ChangeTable(PLDHashTable*, int) (pldhash.cpp:564)
    by 0x7A41D26: PL_DHashTableOperate (pldhash.cpp:649)
    by 0x7A565D9: GetAtomHashEntry(unsigned short const*, unsigned int) (nsAtomT
    by 0x7A56A0F: NS_NewAtom(nsAString_internal const&) (nsAtomTable.cpp:534)
    by 0x68B4D95: do_GetAtom(nsAString_internal const&) (nsIAtom.h:199)

That's just the hash table storage, which I'm sure can get substantially bigger with more browsing.  There's also the AtomImpls pointed to by the hash table entries, and then the strings hanging off the AtomImpls, but I'll need to look more closely to see if they actually belong to the AtomImpls.
Attached patch patch 1Splinter Review
This patch just adds nsStringBuffer::SizeOfIncludingThisIfUnshared(), which the next patch will use.
Attachment #583974 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Attached patch patch 2Splinter Review
This adds the "explicit/atom-table" memory reporter.  With Gmail and
TechCrunch open it's just over 1MB worth.

I created EnsureTableExists() for an earlier version where I registered the
memory reporter in nsAtomTable.cpp.  That ended up having to change, but I
left EnsureTableExists() in because I think it's an improvement.
Attachment #583975 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Attached patch patch 3Splinter Review
This patch moves AtomImpl and PermanentAtomImpl out of the header, because they don't need to be there.
Attachment #583977 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Comment on attachment 583977 [details] [diff] [review]
patch 3

Review of attachment 583977 [details] [diff] [review]:

Why do we want this?
Comment on attachment 583977 [details] [diff] [review]
patch 3

Review of attachment 583977 [details] [diff] [review]:

Ok, I guess hiding these is fine.
Attachment #583977 - Flags: review?(khuey) → review+
> Why do we want this?

Basic information hiding, that's all.  I just figured I'd fix it while I was in the area.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.