I seem to remember that our ChromeWorkers (SessionWorker, PageThumbsWorker, OS.File Worker) were pretty memory-hungry, but I don't see any workers there. Does this mean that they have negligible overhead or that they are only in the parent process?
Cheers, David On 15/03/16 04:34, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Greetings, > > erahm recently wrote a nice blog post with measurements showing the > overhead of > enabling multiple content processes: > > http://www.erahm.org/2016/02/11/memory-usage-of-firefox-with-e10s-enabled/ > > The overhead is high -- 8 content processes *doubles* our physical memory > usage -- which limits the possibility of increasing the number of content > processes beyond a small number. Now I've done some follow-up > measurements to find out what is causing the per-content-process overhead. > > I did this by measuring memory usage with four trivial web pages open, first > with a single content process, then with four content processes, and then > getting the diff between content processes of the two. (about:memory's diff > algorithm normalizes PIDs in memory reports as "NNN" so multiple content > processes naturally get collapsed together, which in this case is exactly > what > we want.) I call this the "small processes" measurement. > > If we divide the memory usage increase by 3 (the increase in the number of > content processes) we get a rough measure of the minimum per-content process > overhead. > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
