On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote: > On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:13 AM, objectwerks inc wrote: > >> (Why is this library thing important? Each process that opens the library >> has the space charged against the VM even though there is only one copy of >> the library in memory with library code being shared across all processes >> that use it) > > Not disagreeing, but it's a bit hard to believe that Safari would need to map > more and more libraries ad infinitum to the tune of 3GB+ worth of shared > address space.
Did I ever say that? I never said all that space is shared library memory space. I only said that some of it is and that the actual VSIZE numbers are irrelevant to the discussion, among which reasons was the shared library space being counted. > And even harder to understand why it can never relinquish any of it, even > when all windows and tabs are closed. Keep Safari up long enough, it becomes > slower and slower as the VMSIZE value increases until it exceeds the process > VM limit. When Safari is running this fat, manually closing a window can take > minutes (and pegs the CPU while doing so). > yes, this does sound like a design bug. I never claimed that there were not problems. I have noticed them myself and not just with 5.x Safari (and in fact have not noticed them yet with 5.x). I am wondering if when you close all your tabs and windows, does it NEVER reduce its footprint? I am wondering if there is a delay in releasing stuff as it may be more efficient to reuse already allocated space. I am betting no one here has done any rigorous testing. I know I have not. My point is that looking at VSIZE itself tells you nothing and your VSIZE and my VSIZE may be totally different from one another when the problems start. Let's not get hung up on VSIZE as it is an irrelevant number for this discussion. > _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
