Comment #32 on issue 7823 by [email protected]: REGRESSION: Closing tabs takes too long http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7823
@divilex Couldn't reproduce in r22886 from build.chromium.org. What version are you using? @pkasting (this comment started before you posted 31) What sites are you seeing the slowdown on besides shacknews.com? r22818 was recent and plugin-related, maybe a negative side-effect worth investigating is present. In certain cases (last tab with a plugin reference) reloads should be noticeably faster. In those cases I expect tab closing to be faster, as well. I ran a series of tests using the stopwatch on my phone to gauge how long it took to close tabs with shacknews.com and the laryn.x?story=59903 URLs. I could only induce a very-slow-to-close state when my copies of Chromium (2.0 and r22886) were loaded down with many tabs (20 each). My tests wouldn't highlight a single delay of 20ms given my measuring instrument, but it was my hope any delay would be replicated per tab across 10 or 20 tabs. Under the generally loaded state, tab closing at times felt "sluggish" and at other times felt "snappy." In one test (first closing Chrome 3.0 with 20 tabs then closing Chrome 2.0 with 20 tabs), there was a hang of >15s in closing a tab in Chrome 2.0. I ran out of time before I could repeat this test. Anyway, here are the results of r22886 compared to 2.0.172.39 using my phone's stopwatch. My laptop runs Windows XP on an Intel L7500 @ 1.6GHz, 1.96 GB of RAM. I was concerned that given 2 GB of RAM, it was important in a field of 2 builds (a, b) to run the tests in order (a, b), then again in order (b, a) to give both a chance to operate under greater and lesser loads. If someone were to run these again, I'd suggest to also note if closing felt sluggish or snappy. I regret not doing so here. === Test series 1 Start with r22886 (3.0.198.0) and 2.0.172.39, each with 10 shacknews.com tabs + 1 about:memory tab. about:memory reported each tab had its own renderer process. Test 1: closing all tabs left to right in r22886, then all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39. # mem(cr3) mem(cr2) t(cr3) t(cr2) 0 580 MB 435 MB 15.9s 7.5s 1 602 MB 448 MB 6.0s 6.5s 2 572 MB 415 MB 6.2s 6.3s Test 2: closing all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39, then all tabs left to right in r22886. # mem(cr2) mem(cr3) t(cr2) t(cr3) 0 396 MB 643 MB 15.6s 5.4s* 1 459 MB 587 MB 6.4s 5.2s 2 413 MB 564 MB 5.2s 5.1s * test 2.0 run right after test 1.0 Test 3: closing all tabs right to left in r22886, then all tabs right to left in 2.0.172.39. # mem(cr3) mem(cr2) t(cr3) t(cr2) 0 538 MB 407 MB 6.5s 5.9s Test 4: closing all tabs right to left in 2.0.172.39, then all tabs right to left in r22886. # mem(cr2) mem(cr3) t(cr2) t(cr3) 0 419MB 568 MB 6.8s 6.2s === Test series 2 Start with 3.0.198.0 and 2.0.172.39, each with 20 shacknews.com tabs + 1 about:memory tab. about:memory reported each tab in r22886 had its own renderer, 2.0.172.39 sometimes reused renderer processes. Test 5: closing all tabs left to right in r22886, then all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39. # mem(cr3) mem(cr2) t(cr3) t(cr2) 0 130 MB 167 MB 37.0s 57.8s* * significant hang >15s Test 6: closing all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39, then all tabs left to right in r22886. # mem(cr2) mem(cr3) t(cr2) t(cr3) 0 217 MB 348 MB 42.7s 32.9s === Test series 3: load http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?story=59903 in 10 tabs + 1 about:memory tab Test 7: closing all tabs left to right in r22886, then all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39. # mem(cr3) mem(cr2) t(cr3) t(cr2) 0 326 MB 292 MB 5.0s 4.7s Test 8: closing all tabs left to right in 2.0.172.39, then all tabs left to right in r22886. # mem(cr2) mem(cr3) t(cr2) t(cr3) 0 256 MB 248 MB 5.6s 4.8s === Conclusions When my laptop is overloaded with shacknews.com tabs, both versions have noticeable sluggishness while closing those tabs. 10 tabs early on induced a slow-to-close-tabs state, similar tests later were snappy. 20 tabs induced a very-slow-to-close-tabs state. In tests 1.0 and 2.0, both versions showed inconsistency under high load, this might be attributed to my laptop settling in as I began this test series. I could not repeat this condition in the later runs of test 1 or 2. In test 5.0, 2.0.172.39 had a noticeable hang that severely affected its results. In tests 5.0 and 6.0, r22886 was sluggish yet had consistent performance under greater and lesser loads. There is a general trend across the tests that the results for each run were faster than previous tests results. I attribute this to my getting faster at running the tests over time and not to a difference between Chromium builds or test parameters. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Automated mail from issue updates at http://crbug.com/ Subscription options: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-bugs -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
