On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:48PM +0200, smaug wrote:
What you mean with "chrome script"? Any chrome JS?
There is frame script overhead per tab in child processes
(around 340kB on my machine) but then we have also tons of
jsms. I see 94 chrome compartments in a child process with one
tab. And
On 03/07/2017 05:29 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
These measurements are for full content processes. Many of the processes
in the above do not need all the chrome script we load in content pr
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> In general I think processes that rely on native code vs chrome script will
> do better here. My impression is that the chrome script js heaps make it
> more difficult for the processes to share memory compared to native code
> pages. I could b
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
>
>> These measurements are for full content processes. Many of the processes
>> in the above do not need all the chrome script we load in content processes
>> today.
>>
>
> That's good
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:27 AM, wrote:
>
> Intuitively I don't grasp how each content process can add that much more
memory that it would become a "major problem" jumping from 4 to 8
Simple: lots of stuff gets duplicated in each process. Efforts have been
made to share data between processes to
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Eric Rahm wrote:
> I assume WebRenderer will have it's own process, but maybe that just gets
> lumped in with the GPU process.
WebRender will live in the GPU process, if there is one. The UI
process otherwise.
Cheers,
kats
_
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Eric Rahm wrote:
> I'd suggest looking at the memory overhead of Chrome's individual processes
> as compared to ours, it's pretty impressive. My blog posts on our own e10s
> memory usage [1] and comparison to other browsers [2] have further details.
> I'm planning
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
> Just about the "4 good, 8 bad" part, it seems quite arbitrary -- Wouldn't
> that be hardware-dependent?
> I would think users with "only" 1GB may have different needs and
> expectations from users with 16+GB.
>
It's more about acceptable memory usage in c
Just about the "4 good, 8 bad" part, it seems quite arbitrary -- Wouldn't that
be hardware-dependent?
I would think users with "only" 1GB may have different needs and expectations
from users with 16+GB.
Intuitively I don't grasp how each content process can add that much more
memory that it wou
It should be pretty easy to measure at a high level with ATSY [1], but I
agree coordination on overall memory requirements before adding new
processes would be useful.
For more detailed breakdowns of memory usage we can depend on about:memory
reports for content processes, we added support for mem
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> These measurements are for full content processes. Many of the processes
> in the above do not need all the chrome script we load in content processes
> today.
>
That's good to know. But it would still be good to get measurements of
these slimm
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote <
> n.netherc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Now for the reason I raised this: the major downside of using multiple
> > processes is that it increases memory usage. Recent-ish measurements
> showe
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:12:55AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Now for the reason I raised this: the major downside of using multiple
processes is that it increases memory usage. Recent-ish measurements showed
that for e10s-multi we could probably go up to 4 content processes without
blowin
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> Now for the reason I raised this: the major downside of using multiple
> processes is that it increases memory usage. Recent-ish measurements showed
> that for e10s-multi we could probably go up to 4 content processes without
> blowing
Thank you for all the responses. Here's an updated list:
- main process
- content process(es): 1 on release for most users; 2 on Nightly
- plugin process(es): just for Flash now? (Win32 involves two processes for
Flash)
- GPU process (bug 1264543, in Fx53)
- Gecko Media Plugin process: one p
It would be great to see this info on MDN or the public wiki :+1:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:00 AM, wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
> > bounces+jmathies=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> > Nethercote
> > Sent: Friday, Marc
> -Original Message-
> From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
> bounces+jmathies=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Nethercote
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 6:15 PM
> To: dev-platform
> Subject: All the processes
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to understand all the different
We plan to introduce JSPlugin processes, one for PDFium and one for Pepper
Flash. The JSPlugin process is a kind of content process, which loads a
remote iframe as a projection of or tag. It will then ask
main process to spawn a plugin binary process to run PDF (or Flash) binary.
Both JSPlugin pr
We also have the Gecko Media Plugin process type. It's not the same as Flash
plugin process. There are at least one per origin doing EME and one shared by
all users of WebRTC that need to encode/decode H.264.
The media playback team are also working on moving the code that interacts with
the pl
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> Do I have any of these details wrong? Have I missed any?
>
We plan to ship a "worker" process that will run ServiceWorker (and
eventually SharedWorker) threads as part of:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1231208
In the f
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to understand all the different processes that we can and will have
> in Firefox. Here's a list I constructed off the top of my head.
>
> - main process
>
> - content process(es): 1 on release for most users; 2 on Nightly
On 3/3/2017 4:15 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
- plugin process: just for Flash now?
On 32-bit Windows, there are multiple plugin processes because Firefox
runs Flash in a plugin process and then Flash spawns one (or more?) of
its own "Protected Mode" processes. IIUC, the Protected Mode proc
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:15:29AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Hi,
I want to understand all the different processes that we can and will have
in Firefox. Here's a list I constructed off the top of my head.
- main process
- content process(es): 1 on release for most users; 2 on Nightly
-
23 matches
Mail list logo