Yeah as long as you don't call any user32 function w.r.t. message loops it's not too bad but as soon as you suck in win32k.sys, you've just lost a meg or two. It's quite hard to not suck it in, com, accessibility, windows, a lot of things are dependent on that. Using delay dll helps too. Trim anything you don't need to load, especially shell32.
Beside that, regression testing is the best thing to do first (hint hint) I don't know the new processes types enough to comment more on that. M-A On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Erik Kay <[email protected]> wrote: > As we add more subprocesses (workers, utilities, extensions, etc.), it > would be great if we could reduce the minimum memory that these processes > consume. I know that there was some work done a while back to look at what > was the minimum cost of a new process on Windows given our dll size, etc. > (maruel?), but I'm sure that there's more than can be done for us to reduce > memory usage above this level. > Erik > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Paweł Hajdan Jr. <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> As extensions are visible in the task manager, it's also possible to >> see their memory usage. I was experimenting with some sample >> extensions, and the usage seems to be in range 1 MB - 12 MB. Typically >> 3-5 MB. >> >> I wonder if it would be possible to reduce that memory usage. In case >> it negatively affects performance, we could have some opt-in way for >> extension developers to say "I want my extensions to run as fast as >> possible, even with increased memory usage". >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
