On Jul 19, 2017 8:57 PM, "Mike Hommey" <m...@glandium.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > > > What would be the rationale behind this choice? > > Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine > with (less than) 2GB RAM, makes a difference. > > > I thought we had data that showed OOM (small) due to VM fragmentation still > outweighed OOM (large) on these machines. If that is the case 64-bit is > strictly better. I don't believe you can exhaust the address space and have VM fragmentation be an actual problem when you have less than 2GB RAM. Of if you do, everything is slow to a crawl before that happens. I don't understand why that would be, but if so it should show in crashstats as fewer small OOMs on these devices. Does the data actually show that? Also, that tells nothing about people that never hit OOM (a lot of people even close their browser well before that could happen). You're saying the size difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is so great users will start manually shutting down? I find that hard to believe. If they are shutting down apps to save memory they will probably do it with both 32-bit and 64-bit. Again, though, in theory we have usage hour telemetry we could look at to confirm (although maybe only for beta?). _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
