On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Pohl wrote:
>> We are now (finally) getting ready to turn on history swipe animations
>> (bug 860493). There have been two major changes since sending out the
>> email below earlier in the ye
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Pohl wrote:
>
> We are now (finally) getting ready to turn on history swipe animations
> (bug 860493). There have been two major changes since sending out the
> email below earlier in the year:
> 1. We will only store snapshots for the 5 most recent pages,
n OSX (bug 673875).
If you have any questions, concerns or feedback, please let me know.
Thanks,
Stephen
Original Message
Subject: Increase in memory utilization on Mac OSX 10.7+ due to history
swipe animations
From: Stephen Pohl
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Date: 2/12/13
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>
> My point isn't to quarrel about the depth of that back stack, but to say
> that it is not OK to simply dismiss a new feature because it increases
> memory footprint. Features vs footprint is a balancing act. Both sides must
> be weighed and t
L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 20:17 -0800, Stephen Pohl wrote:
L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 18:40 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote:
doing something horribly wrong with memory. This is simply a memory-expensive
feature and it's a feature we *must* land.
Why is it s
This is kind of OT, but
> OTOH, if the computer has memory available, we should be using *all* of it
> any place we can trade
> memory for speed.
We considered this idea in MemShrink some months ago, and we mostly
dropped it. There are two essential problems that we weren't able to
overcome.
1
On 2/13/2013 3:12 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
c) Consider adaptive techniques so that users who use this feature
heavily will store more screenshots (at the cost of more memory),
while those who don't use it won't pay a price.
Apart from the other solution of re-rendering directly from bfcache,
this
Now that I've looked more closely, I take back my earlier "What Ed
said." The issue is more nuanced than I originally thought.
> To save everyone having to look at the graph - the initial landing showed a
> consistent 20% regression in trace malloc maxheap. If this were a 1-5%
> regression, then
I think people are legitimately concerned about the memory use of this feature.
I don't think anyone is trying to dismiss anything here. I still don't fully
understand why we need a full size screenshot of the last N pages. Is the last
page sufficient and we redraw the rest while we animate? I
On 2/12/2013 8:05 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
Hey Asa,
where does the magic 20 pages deep history number come from? Why not 1? Or 999?
Andreas
The goal of the feature is to work when ever the user engages it and not
just "for the first couple of pages".
Just have one and too many users would fa
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 20:17 -0800, Stephen Pohl wrote:
> L. David Baron wrote:
> >On Tuesday 2013-02-12 18:40 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> >>doing something horribly wrong with memory. This is simply a
> >>memory-expensive feature and it's a feature we *must* land.
> >Why is it simply a memory-expen
There is some context to the magic number 20 in comment 305 in the bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678392#c305
In summary, it seems to match what other browsers are doing and the
memory consumption during experiments remained below 10mb.
-Stephen
Andreas Gal wrote:
Hey Asa
L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 18:40 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote:
doing something horribly wrong with memory. This is simply a
memory-expensive feature and it's a feature we *must* land.
Why is it simply a memory-expensive feature? Why does it require
any additional memory overhead a
Hey Asa,
where does the magic 20 pages deep history number come from? Why not 1? Or 999?
Andreas
On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 3:08 PM, Ed Morley wrote:
>> On 12 February 2013 22:11:12, Stephen Pohl wrote:
>>> I wanted to give a heads up that we're in the proce
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 18:40 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> doing something horribly wrong with memory. This is simply a
> memory-expensive feature and it's a feature we *must* land.
Why is it simply a memory-expensive feature? Why does it require
any additional memory overhead at all, other than whi
On 2/12/2013 3:08 PM, Ed Morley wrote:
On 12 February 2013 22:11:12, Stephen Pohl wrote:
I wanted to give a heads up that we're in the process of finalizing
the patch for bug 678392 which will give us history swipe animations
on Mac OSX 10.7+. Since we will be taking snapshots of the 20
most-rec
details around this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678392#c176
-Stephen
Original Message
Subject: Re: Increase in memory utilization on Mac OSX 10.7+ due to
history swipe animations
From: Robert O'Callahan
To: Stephen Pohl
Cc: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Da
Can we compress these screenshots to JPEG or something?
Rob
--
Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur
Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl
bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat
lbh zhfg or lbhe fr
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
>
> BTW, 20 seems to be a very high number to cache per tab. The biggest problem
> I'd like to solve is that I often accidentally swipe back, and that's almost
> always just 1 page back.
That was my first thought, too.
Nick
_
n Pohl"
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:11:12 PM
Subject: Increase in memory utilization on Mac OSX 10.7+ due to history swipe
animations
Hi,
I wanted to give a heads up that we're in the process of finalizing the
patch for bug 678392 which will
> To save everyone having to look at the graph - the initial landing showed a
> consistent 20% regression in trace malloc maxheap. If this were a 1-5%
> regression, then I think it would be worth discussing the trade-off. At 20%,
> I really don't see how we can take this, sorry! :-(
I hope it's no
often accidentally swipe back, and
that's almost always just 1 page back.
--Jet
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Pohl"
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:11:12 PM
Subject: Increase in memory utilization on Mac OSX 10.7+ due to history
On 12 February 2013 22:11:12, Stephen Pohl wrote:
I wanted to give a heads up that we're in the process of finalizing
the patch for bug 678392 which will give us history swipe animations
on Mac OSX 10.7+. Since we will be taking snapshots of the 20
most-recently visited pages, this will undoubted
Hi,
I wanted to give a heads up that we're in the process of finalizing the
patch for bug 678392 which will give us history swipe animations on Mac
OSX 10.7+. Since we will be taking snapshots of the 20 most-recently
visited pages, this will undoubtedly lead to an increase in memory
utilizati
24 matches
Mail list logo
