Have you tried running with --memory-model=high ? 2009/6/23 PhistucK <[email protected]>: > This explanation actually shows me the source of this serious jank (I hope I > am using the term in the right context) I am having all of the time. > I am getting back to Chrome after a few minutes of dealing with some other > application and I have to wait, sometimes even for twenty seconds or more, > until I get the control back on the tab contents. > Sometimes I am not using a tab for a few minutes (or more) and when I switch > back to it, it takes it twenty seconds or more until I get the control back > of the tab contents. > :( > > ☆PhistucK > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 19:57, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mike Beltzner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 21-Jun-09, at 10:22 AM, Mike Belshe wrote: >>> >>>> Second, the author is basically right. Since he's running on Vista, its >>>> a bit hard to tell whether his stats included shared memory or not; using >>>> the default memory statistic ("Memory (Private Working Set)") is actually a >>>> pretty good measure to just sum. But he doesn't say which measurement he >>>> used. >>> >>> Doesn't Private Bytes accurately represent the private memory for a given >>> process? I thought the whole point of that was that it didn't measure any >>> shared memory pools. >> >> Yes, that accurately represents the private memory for a process, but it >> doesn't reflect the user's experience. Windows generally tracks working >> set. Why? Because the working set is the amount of memory *not available >> to other apps*. If other apps can have the memory, then using the bytes is >> inconsequential. >> For most applications, there isn't much difference between private bytes >> and working set private bytes. However, because of Chrome's multi-proc >> architecture, there is a big difference. The reason is because >> Chrome intentionally gives memory back to the OS. For instance, on my >> current instance of Chrome, I'm using 16 tabs. The sum of the private bytes >> is 514408. The sum of the private working set bytes is 275040, nearly half >> of the private bytes number. This is on a machine with 8GB of RAM, so there >> is plenty of memory to go around. But if some other app wants the memory, >> Chrome gave it back to the OS and will suffer the page faults to get it >> back. Since Chrome has given it back to the OS (and has volunteered to take >> the performance consequences of getting it back), I don't think it should be >> counted as Chrome usage. Others may disagree. But Windows uses working set >> as the primary metric for all applications the OS folks agree that working >> set is the right way to account for memory usage. >> Single process browsers have a hard time giving memory back, because they >> can't differentiate which pages are accounted to unused, background tabs and >> which pages are accounted to the active, in-use tabs. >> Finally, the common metric which definitely doesn't work well is Windows >> XP's default metric: working set (private + shared). Because of shared >> memory between processes, simply summing the working set will far overstate >> the actual RAM used. Part of the motivation with Vista changing the default >> metric from working set to private working set was precisely to deal with >> the issue of better accounting of shared memory. >> Mike >> >> >> > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
