768015 - Override Toolkit and increase image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb to 250MB

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Preferences, defect)

Description

[Philip Chee]

From Firefox Bug 746055:

> Unfortunately we can't make max_bytes_for_sync_decode much smaller without 
> breaking all our tests, so it sounds like for now, the right solution is to 
> increase max_decoded_image_kb -- that value was set unscientifically, anyway.

From: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ee415e3f509d

+// The maximum amount of decoded image data we'll willingly keep around (we
+// might keep around more than this, but we'll try to get down to this value).
+// (This is intentionally on the high side; see bug 746055.)
+pref("image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb", 256000);

Comment 1

[Philip Chee]

Our prefs file is:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/suite/browser/browser-prefs.js
Ask neil@parkway or IanN as to where in this file the "image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb" goes.

Comment 2

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

(In reply to Philip Chee from comment #1)
> Our prefs file is:
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/suite/browser/browser-prefs.js
> Ask neil@parkway or IanN as to where in this file the
> "image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb" goes.

The current default is 51200. The prefs in that file are not in alphabetical order. None of them has (yet) a name beginning with "image.".

OK, Ian, Neil, for the benefit of whoever will someday tackle this bug, where do you think the new line should go?

Comment 3

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

[#seamonkey] <NeilAway> tonymec: slap it in after mailnews.ui.deleteMarksRead I guess

Patch coming soon.

Comment 4

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Attachment: patch v0

Comment 5

[Karsten Düsterloh]

Comment on attachment 649134 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v0

Not my area of experience, sorry.

Comment 6

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

This patch has no l10n impact and is supposed to give better performance; but I don't know how to test the latter (bake on trunk and look at Talos? How not to mix this fix's results with results for the preceding or following commit?)

Shall it be ported to Aurora? to Beta? and when?

Comment 7

[Philip Chee]

From Bug 746055 Comment 12:
> Effectively back out bug 732820 by setting max decoded image kb to 250MB; I'd rather be
> conservative here.  (See also bug 744309.)
This essentially fixes a performance regression so I would expect no downsize.

This landed in Firefox 14 So we would need to land this on SeaMonkey 2.11 soonish before the final beta. CC Callek, Opinion please?

Comment 8

[Jens Hatlak (:InvisibleSmiley)]

(In reply to Philip Chee from comment #7)
> This landed in Firefox 14 So we would need to land this on SeaMonkey 2.11
> soonish before the final beta.

2.11 has been released already. ;-) ITYM 2.12.

Comment 9

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2bd3eb8ed976

Comment 10

[Ian Neal]

Comment on attachment 649134 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v0

[Triage Comment]
Okay for comm-aurora, I'll let Callek decide on comm-beta

Comment 11

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Attachment: patch v1 (unbitrotted for beta)

Comment 12

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

NB. Patch v0 applies cleanly (ATM) on aurora but not on beta.
I'm not requesting a? until at least one trunk build is out with the fix.
Callek: feel free to set a-, it'll have been a good exercise about Mercurial queues anyway.

Comment 13

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Firefox/17.0 SeaMonkey/2.14a1 ID:20120807135517 c-c:0fed583977b2 m-c:e55638d4037a

The default for image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb is now 256000. Does that mean the fix is VERIFIED or is there something else which should be tested?

Comment 14

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

from #seamonkey:
> tonymec>	Callek: bug 746055 was fixed 2012-04-23 in mozilla14 which IIUC is now beta. (don't know if you saw it before being pinged out)
> Callek>	tonymec: so how long has it baked for us?
> Callek>	and is it the same pref value for us and Firefox?
> tonymec>	Callek: about one week, which wasn't all green, and it is indeed the same pref name & value.
> Callek>	tonymec: my opinion here is "land it on beta asap" Firefox has had much longer testing cycle, and we have had a few nights worth, we'll get larger testing/confidence if we can get our next beta out with it than if we were to wait an extra week.

Comment 15

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Comment on attachment 649822 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v1 (unbitrotted for beta)

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): same as Firefox bug 746055
User impact if declined: performance hit on images
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): m-c since April, c-c one week
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): minimal (default change for one single pref)
String or UUID changes made by this patch: none

Comment 16

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Comment on attachment 649822 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v1 (unbitrotted for beta)

[Approval Request Comment]
Regression caused by (bug #): 
User impact if declined: 
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): 
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky):
String changes made by this patch:

see above, I had set wrong flag.

Comment 17

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-aurora/rev/c48583d1810b
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-beta/rev/bdfc8962c9bc

Comment 18

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Ryan: That was fast! Thanks a lot. :-)

Comment 19

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec] from comment #13)
> The default for image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb is now 256000. Does that mean
> the fix is VERIFIED or is there something else which should be tested?

To verify this bug, just compare about:config before/after this patch.

Comment 20

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

(In reply to Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) from comment #19)
> (In reply to Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec] from comment #13)
> > The default for image.mem.max_decoded_image_kb is now 256000. Does that mean
> > the fix is VERIFIED or is there something else which should be tested?
> 
> To verify this bug, just compare about:config before/after this patch.

OK, it's VERIFIED then. I checked about:config in trunk, anyone who wants to load a current Aurora or Beta build to check its about:config may do so, but there's no urgent need for it.