No. I added it now and I will post the results later.
Thank you!
I really hope it will help...
☆PhistucK
2009/6/23 Dean McNamee <de...@chromium.org>
> Have you tried running with --memory-model=high ?
>
> 2009/6/23 PhistucK <phist...@gmail.com>:
> > 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 <mbel...@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com>
> >> 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: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
