Closed
Bug 799476
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Update MemoryObserver.dumpMemoryStats to reuse existing code
Categories
(Firefox for Android Graveyard :: General, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 19
People
(Reporter: kats, Assigned: kats)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
3.66 KB,
patch
|
mfinkle
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Bug 788021 added some code to dump about:memory stats to a file. We should change the MemoryObserver code in browser.js (added in bug 783230) to just invoke that instead of duplicating a bunch of stuff.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
This changes it from dumping out to logcat to saving the dump into a gzipped file. The location of the file is written out to logcat, e.g.: 10-09 16:29:16.906 E/GeckoConsole( 5353): nsIMemoryReporterManager::dumpReports() dumped reports to /data/data/org.mozilla.fennec_kats/app_tmp/memory-report-foo-5353.json.gz
Attachment #669711 -
Flags: review?(mark.finkle)
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 669711 [details] [diff] [review] Patch >+ memMgr.dumpMemoryReportsToFile(aLabel, false, true); The last param is "dumpChildProcesses". Do we want to do that? What child processes do we have? r+, but I'm all for doing less work if we can get away with it.
Attachment #669711 -
Flags: review?(mark.finkle) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) from comment #2) > The last param is "dumpChildProcesses". Do we want to do that? What child > processes do we have? I threw that in for future-proofing. If we ever spawn a child process we'll probably want to count it as well, and if we start spawning a child process accidentally this might help us notice and fix it. I don't believe that it adds significant overhead, just an extra call to ContentParent::GetAll.
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kartikaya Gupta (:kats) from comment #3) > (In reply to Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) from comment #2) > > The last param is "dumpChildProcesses". Do we want to do that? What child > > processes do we have? > > I threw that in for future-proofing. If we ever spawn a child process we'll > probably want to count it as well, and if we start spawning a child process > accidentally this might help us notice and fix it. I don't believe that it > adds significant overhead, just an extra call to ContentParent::GetAll. OK, as long as the overhead is minimal. Thanks for checking.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7e369eed5f9f
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7e369eed5f9f
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 19
Updated•3 years ago
|
Product: Firefox for Android → Firefox for Android Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•