Closed Bug 747202 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago
Monkey: Investigate memory usage
IonMonkey is already hooked up to about:memory, its stats contribute to mjit code and data sizes. We just need to browse around (bug WebJsPerf is a good candidate) and see what our memory usage is like compared to a normal JM+TI browser.
10 years ago
Assignee: general → dvander
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
10 years ago
Can Ion's mjit code/data stats be measured separately from JM's? I think it would be worth doing if it's not too hard.
(In reply to Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] from comment #1) > Can Ion's mjit code/data stats be measured separately from JM's? I think it > would be worth doing if it's not too hard. Yup that should be pretty easy.
Whiteboard: [ion:t][MemShrink] → [ion:t][MemShrink:P2]
This patch improves the memory reporting for IonMonkey. - I've split Ion code and data from Jaeger code and data. I'm now using the following prefixes: "jaeger-", "ion-" and "regexp-". I renamed a bunch of variable and class members accordingly. - I'm measuring IonCodes separately from scripts. There are so few IonCodes that I couldn't get them to show up separately in about:memory; they always end up aggregated into the "sundries" entries. This isn't a bad thing :) - I made the memory measurements follow the standard protocols: - Use |mallocSizeOf| instead of computing sizes (less error prone and includes slop bytes); - Rename size() as sizeOfIncludingThis(). - I removed the bufferSize() measurement, which double-counted Ion code (and also incorrectly attributed it to "mjit-data"). Preliminary browsing indicates that the amount of memory used by IonMonkey is small, *much* less than JaegerMonkey. It seems to disappear pretty quickly, too. Good news.
Attachment #662764 - Flags: review?(dvander)
Comment on attachment 662764 [details] [diff] [review] Separate and clean up JaegerMonkey's and IonMonkey's memory reporting. Review of attachment 662764 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for doing this!
Attachment #662764 - Flags: review?(dvander) → review+
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/fc78ad051132 dvander, I'll let you decide if you want to close the bug based on this patch, or if you want to do some additional investigation first.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla18
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.