On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:40 AM, objectwerks inc wrote: > > 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.
I haven't done rigorous testing, but the times where I have closed all Safari windows and cleared the cache, it didn't reduce the reported VSIZE except by .01GB or so, and then just sat there. > > 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. No process can exceed its per-process VM limit, so the closer the reported VSIZE approaches 4GB, the closer is its demise. _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
