On 26-Jun-09, at 12:59 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
> Overall, though, that should mean that we're *not* double counting
> memory. In fact, when I observed as the test ran, there were only
> three processes: one for the browser, one for the single content
> process from which all tabs were spawned, and one for Shockwave/
> Flash. Good news, I guess, in terms of reporting accurately!
>
> Good news and bad news :-) If you publish results saying how Chrome
> did, Chrome doesn't get to cleanup as cleanly in this case. It
> still *should*, but it's not what users do :-)
Hm, so the thinking is that since users will close tabs and open new
ones and navigate from the Omnibox that will close and open processes,
thus freeing memory?
I don't think I'm going to publish results, per se, but if I do, I'll
point this part out for sure.
> Right, but AIUI, it's an erring on the side of reporting less, not
> more. If there's a better way to automate pageloads that represents
> real world usage, please let me know.
>
> I don't know of cross-browser code that will accomplish what you
> want. Maybe we should add that.
What about command line invocation? Does that spawn new processes?
cheers,
mike
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
