Smac89 Reporter
	Description • 8 years ago

What did you do?
================
1. Start firefox developer edition

What happened?
==============
Memory usage jumps to over 200M and after a short while, it just hovers around the 600-800MB mark

What should have happened?
==========================
Slower increase in memory usage

Is there anything else we should know?
======================================
Opening a page such as squarespace.com and just staying on the front page rapidly increases the memory usage to over 1GB

Windows 10 pro, intel i5

	Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]
	Comment 1 • 8 years ago

I tried and failed to reproduce this on Windows, Mac and Linux.

The front page constantly loops through a number of short videos (or maybe it's a single video on loop), so presumably it's related to that somehow.

	Smac89 Reporter
	Comment 2 • 8 years ago

This is an screen shot of this bug as I have observed in Ubuntu 14.04. At the time of taking the screenie, I had about 8 tabs open with one of them being youtube.

	Smac89 Reporter
	Comment 3 • 8 years ago

This screenshot is taken after I open squarespace.com. It is hovering around 766M just as I am finishing this post

	Smac89 Reporter
	Comment 4 • 8 years ago

Obviously, the changes aren't as drastic as they were in windows, but all the same it shows the same pattern as I previously mentioned

	Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]
	Comment 5 • 8 years ago

noblechuk5: thanks for the data. Can you please take some "memory reports" following the instructions at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/about:memory ? That will give us a lot more data. Without that we'll have no chance of diagnosing the problem. Thank you.

	Smac89 Reporter
	Comment 6 • 8 years ago

Memory report generated before I open squarespace.com

I had about 9 tabs open including YouTube

	Smac89 Reporter
	Comment 7 • 8 years ago

Memory report generated after I open squarespace.com

I have the same amount of tabs open as the previous memory report

	Eric Rahm [:erahm]
	Comment 8 • 8 years ago

There seems to be something terribly wrong with the heap-textures memory reporter:

>   └──-285,257.31 MB (-30071.78%) -- gfx [?!]
>      ├─────────0.48 MB (00.05%) ── font-shaped-words
>      ├─────────0.44 MB (00.05%) ── font-tables
>      ├─────────0.15 MB (00.02%) ── font-list
>      ├─────────0.13 MB (00.01%) ── font-cache
>      ├─────────0.02 MB (00.00%) ── font-charmaps
>      └──-285,258.52 MB (-30071.91%) ── heap-textures [?!]

That said, if we focus on the diff of overall memory usage things seem ok for squarespace:

> 101.14 MB ── resident
> 102.49 MB ── resident-unique

100 MB for a graphics intensive page isn't outrageous. As we're not seeing the drastic jump on Linux, is it possible to get reports on Windows?

	Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]
	Comment 9 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Eric Rahm [:erahm] from comment #8)
> There seems to be something terribly wrong with the heap-textures memory
> reporter:
> 
> >   └──-285,257.31 MB (-30071.78%) -- gfx [?!]
> >      ├─────────0.48 MB (00.05%) ── font-shaped-words
> >      ├─────────0.44 MB (00.05%) ── font-tables
> >      ├─────────0.15 MB (00.02%) ── font-list
> >      ├─────────0.13 MB (00.01%) ── font-cache
> >      ├─────────0.02 MB (00.00%) ── font-charmaps
> >      └──-285,258.52 MB (-30071.91%) ── heap-textures [?!]

This might be bug 1234343, which was fixed in 46.

	Eric Rahm [:erahm]
	Comment 10 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] from comment #9)
> (In reply to Eric Rahm [:erahm] from comment #8)
> > There seems to be something terribly wrong with the heap-textures memory
> > reporter:
> > 
> > >   └──-285,257.31 MB (-30071.78%) -- gfx [?!]
> > >      ├─────────0.48 MB (00.05%) ── font-shaped-words
> > >      ├─────────0.44 MB (00.05%) ── font-tables
> > >      ├─────────0.15 MB (00.02%) ── font-list
> > >      ├─────────0.13 MB (00.01%) ── font-cache
> > >      ├─────────0.02 MB (00.00%) ── font-charmaps
> > >      └──-285,258.52 MB (-30071.91%) ── heap-textures [?!]
> 
> This might be bug 1234343, which was fixed in 46.

Note that's a negative value, which implies this is after bug 1234343 (and dev edition is on 46 now).