On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike Beltzner <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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? Oh - good call - yes - that should work. > > > cheers, > mike > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
