751760 - Mozilla Nightly 15 uses a lot of memory

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[DrSavvas]

Attachment: nightly15 ram.png

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/15.0 Firefox/15.0a1
Build ID: 20120503030512

Steps to reproduce:

After verison 15 on Nightly If I keep browsing on pages the memory that Nightly uses, it increasing dramatically.


Actual results:

Nightly uses a lot of RAM


Expected results:

The versions previously 15 of Nightly were OK. After the update Nightly uses a lot of memory after 5 mins of browsing.

Comment 1

[Andreas Wagner [:TheOne] [use NI]]

Can you please try with the newest Aurora build if you can reproduce? Please use a clean profile for testing.

Comment 2

[Justin Lebar (not reading bugmail)]

Since we don't have a [MemShrink:waitingforinfo] tag, I'm removing [MemShrink] until there's some actionable information in this bug.

Andreas, when triaging, it doesn't seem to me that it's useful to put a bug like this in front of developers, since there's absolutely nothing we can do with it.  I don't know if the current triage procedures have a way for you to "triage" a bug into "waiting for info", but it seems to me that moving this bug, in its current state, into "JS Engine" is a net loss overall.

Comment 3

[Andreas Wagner [:TheOne] [use NI]]

Justin, I was just sorting this bug into the right component. I also didn't know a better way to handle such pending bugs. Sorry for the disturbance...

In the meantime, I close this as INCOMPLETE. DrSavvas, please reopen if you have new information.

Comment 4

[Justin Lebar (not reading bugmail)]

Sorry, it's not your fault, Andreas.  Others have also been triaging really incomplete bugs into more specific components, too.  :)

Comment 5

[Andreas Wagner [:TheOne] [use NI]]

(In reply to Justin Lebar [:jlebar] from comment #4)
> Sorry, it's not your fault, Andreas.  Others have also been triaging really
> incomplete bugs into more specific components, too.  :)

So you say better not sort incomplete bugs into the respective component?

Comment 6

[Justin Lebar (not reading bugmail)]

(In reply to Andreas Wagner [:TheOne] from comment #5)
> So you say better not sort incomplete bugs into the respective component?

From my perspective as a dev, the purpose of moving a bug out of "untriaged" and into a more-specific component is to bring the bug to the attention of those who watch the component.  (Same with tagging a bug with '[MemShrink]'.)

If there's nothing that devs or managers can do with the bug, then from my perspective, there isn't much use bringing it to our attention.

So...yes.  :)