- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Memory usage

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi Jorge, On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:44:11PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:11:30AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > ------------------------------------------- > > Huge page with different memory allocators: > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 5.4 134912 113740 pts/17 S+ 18:56 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > 5.4 134916 113752 pts/17 S+ 18:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > 5.4 134828 113660 pts/17 S+ 18:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > > > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > > > 5.1 117796 106436 pts/17 S+ 18:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > 5.1 117568 106404 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > 5.1 117820 106460 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > > > > > This data comes from a memory usage reduction by tunning the > > simpleVector memory allocator. The first is the current one, > > which allocates in chunks of 2*numAlloc, the second allocates one > > by one and the third is a custom one I made. > > > > The 1-allocator is the best memory usage reducer but it's > > slower (roughly 20%). The cst-allocator reduces a bit less but is > > almost as fast as the 2x-allocator (2% slower or so). > > > > Memory reduction: > > > > VSZ RSS > > ----------------------------- > > 1-allocator 15% 7.3% > > cst-allocator 13% 6.5% > > ----------------------------- > > After some more study I got to a second cst2-allocator that reduces > almost as much as the 1-allocator but with the same (or better) speed > than the 2x one! > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.1 113224 105820 pts/17 S+ 13:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > 5.0 112948 105740 pts/17 S+ 13:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > 5.0 115528 105628 pts/17 S+ 13:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > > So now we have: > > ----------------------------- > Memory reduction: > > VSZ RSS > ----------------------------- > 1-allocator 15% 7.3% > cst-allocator 13% 6.5% > cst2-allocator 15% 7.3% > ----------------------------- > > > Committed. I have some concerns regarding the new SimpleVector implementation: * It introduces two arbitrary numbers (100 as a limit to switch to a different bahaviour, and the 1/10 factor) which are optimized for a specific page on a specific platform. The original 2x method feels more general to me even though it may be a bit less memory efficient. * It probabely only works fast, as most malloc libraries use some heuristics to avoid memcpy for every realloc. Depending on this behaviour may create problems on more exotic platforms. * Rather than igoring the initAlloc parameter I would propose to reconsider the places where SimpleVector() is inititalized with initAlloc > 1. There also is an interesting comment about initAlloc in the Textblock constructor. Having said all this, it's not a big issue for me. If CPU usage should really become a problem on some platform, we could easily change the code. It's just 2 or 3 lines after all. Cheers, Johannes

June 26, 2008

Memory usage

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:44:11PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:11:30AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > ------------------------------------------- > > Huge page with different memory allocators: > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 5.4 134912 113740 pts/17 S+ 18:56 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > 5.4 134916 113752 pts/17 S+ 18:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > 5.4 134828 113660 pts/17 S+ 18:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > > > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > > > 5.1 117796 106436 pts/17 S+ 18:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > 5.1 117568 106404 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > 5.1 117820 106460 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > > > > > This data comes from a memory usage reduction by tunning the > > simpleVector memory allocator. The first is the current one, > > which allocates in chunks of 2*numAlloc, the second allocates one > > by one and the third is a custom one I made. > > > > The 1-allocator is the best memory usage reducer but it's > > slower (roughly 20%). The cst-allocator reduces a bit less but is > > almost as fast as the 2x-allocator (2% slower or so). > > > > Memory reduction: > > > > VSZ RSS > > ----------------------------- > > 1-allocator 15% 7.3% > > cst-allocator 13% 6.5% > > ----------------------------- > > After some more study I got to a second cst2-allocator that reduces > almost as much as the 1-allocator but with the same (or better) speed > than the 2x one! > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.1 113224 105820 pts/17 S+ 13:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > 5.0 112948 105740 pts/17 S+ 13:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > 5.0 115528 105628 pts/17 S+ 13:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 > > So now we have: > > ----------------------------- > Memory reduction: > > VSZ RSS > ----------------------------- > 1-allocator 15% 7.3% > cst-allocator 13% 6.5% > cst2-allocator 15% 7.3% > ----------------------------- > > > Committed. Here some results from DragonFly. BTW it found out that by switching off speedstep and thereby locking the CPU to 600MHz I can get more consistent timings. Old SimpleVector: real 0m9.284s user 0m7.921s sys 0m0.336s USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND hofmann 18621 19.5 7.7 141288 119732 p2 SL+ 4:39PM 0:04.01 ./dillo-fltk New SimpleVector from cvs: real 0m10.012s user 0m8.005s sys 0m0.585s USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND hofmann 19344 41.6 7.6 126796 119464 p2 SL+ 4:41PM 0:04.39 ./dillo-fltk So there is a considerable memory reduction but also a noticable higher CPU (especially system) load. Cheers, Johannes

June 24, 2008

Memory usage

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 08:49:17PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:11:30AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I've been reviewing memory usage these days, and found some > > weird numbers that I'd like to understand. > > > > Taking the huge mysql page (13MB), I made the following > > memory measures (with ps). Load a bare dillo, load the simple > > directory where the huge page is located, then the huge page, > > then back, then forward, back, forward and back. > > > > I did this for dillo2.19Jun, dillo2.21Jun, dillo-fltk (with > > zone allocators) and dillo1. All in GNU/Linux with image_off. > > > > Here are the numbers: > > > > ----------- > > Memory test > > ----------- > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 0.1 9672 4144 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:00 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun bare > > 0.2 10376 4756 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:00 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun dir list > > 6.9 176176 144776 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:02 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun huge page > > 5.4 123556 113216 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:02 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun back > > 7.0 176176 146240 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:05 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun forward > > 5.6 127020 117720 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:05 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun back > > 7.0 176172 146240 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:07 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun forward > > 5.6 127016 117716 pts/10 S+ 09:37 0:08 ./dillo-fltk.19Jun back > > > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 0.1 9672 4140 pts/10 S+ 09:26 0:00 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun bare > > 0.2 10376 4760 pts/10 S+ 09:26 0:00 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun dir list > > 5.9 147904 123988 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:02 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun huge page > > 4.9 111668 101944 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:02 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun back > > 6.0 147780 124792 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:05 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun forward > > 5.0 115008 105780 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:05 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun back > > 6.0 147780 124856 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:07 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun forward > > 5.1 115008 105844 pts/10 S+ 09:31 0:07 ./dillo-fltk.21Jun back > > > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 0.1 9676 4084 pts/10 S+ 11:16 0:00 ./dillo-fltk bare > > 0.2 10464 4768 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:00 ./dillo-fltk dir list > > 5.4 136960 112920 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:04 ./dillo-fltk huge page > > 4.3 100724 90864 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:04 ./dillo-fltk back > > 5.4 136952 113756 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:09 ./dillo-fltk forward > > 4.5 104180 94744 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:09 ./dillo-fltk back > > 5.4 136888 113776 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:13 ./dillo-fltk forward > > 4.5 104116 94764 pts/10 S+ 11:17 0:14 ./dillo-fltk back > > > > > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > 0.1 8408 3524 pts/10 S+ 10:59 0:00 ./dillo1 bare > > 0.1 24788 3564 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:00 ./dillo1 dir list > > 8.7 226996 182220 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:07 ./dillo1 huge page > > 6.8 165880 141792 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:09 ./dillo1 back > > 8.8 226952 184176 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:17 ./dillo1 forward > > 6.9 166264 144024 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:18 ./dillo1 back > > 8.8 226968 184216 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:26 ./dillo1 forward > > 6.9 166264 144060 pts/10 S+ 11:01 0:27 ./dillo1 back > > > > > > Besides showing clearly a sane memory usage reduction pattern, > > there's a strange fact I don't understand. Once back from the > > huge page, I'd expect memory usage to drop to what it was before > > plus the 13MB of cached data, plus some KB of overhead, BUT the > > RSS keeps near 90MB. > > > > This happens with dillo1 too. > > > > My thoughts: > > > > * If this memory is not freed, it'd be great to find the huge > > leak. > > * If it's freed but not returned to the OS., dillo would > > consume as much memory as the biggest page it has loaded. > > Clearly not a desirable situation. > > * It may be that the O.S. knows it can claim back this memory > > when necessary but prefers to keep it assigned to the > > same process until it finds better use for it. > > I think this is related to the malloc implementation in Linux/glibc. > Here on DragonFly I get: > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND > hofmann 3331 0.0 0.3 6732 4436 p3 IL+ 8:37PM 0:00.14 ./dillo-fltk dir list > hofmann 3331 26.9 7.6 140116 118580 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:04.13 ./dillo-fltk huge page > hofmann 3331 10.3 1.2 25488 19064 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:05.38 ./dillo-fltk back > hofmann 3331 79.2 7.6 140112 118584 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:09.90 ./dillo-fltk forward > hofmann 3331 11.1 1.3 26252 19840 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:11.29 ./dillo-fltk back > hofmann 3331 91.1 7.6 140548 119232 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:15.67 ./dillo-fltk forward > hofmann 3331 27.8 1.3 26816 20392 p3 SL+ 8:37PM 0:16.98 ./dillo-fltk back > > Which is not perfect, but reasonable. > I think DragonFly has changed the malloc implementation some time > ago. If I remember correctly there was a more Linux-like behaviour > before. Well, this explains a lof of things, including why in your system there's a speed improvement when leaving the huge page. There're still 6MB VSZ (2MB RSS) I can't explain considering the page in the cache is 13MB. I've seen leaks even with plain text, but this is not huge. Thanks for the info! -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2008

Memory usage

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:11:30AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > ------------------------------------------- > Huge page with different memory allocators: > ------------------------------------------- > > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > 5.4 134912 113740 pts/17 S+ 18:56 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > 5.4 134916 113752 pts/17 S+ 18:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > 5.4 134828 113660 pts/17 S+ 18:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 2x > > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > > 5.1 117796 106436 pts/17 S+ 18:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > 5.1 117568 106404 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > 5.1 117820 106460 pts/17 S+ 19:00 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst > > > This data comes from a memory usage reduction by tunning the > simpleVector memory allocator. The first is the current one, > which allocates in chunks of 2*numAlloc, the second allocates one > by one and the third is a custom one I made. > > The 1-allocator is the best memory usage reducer but it's > slower (roughly 20%). The cst-allocator reduces a bit less but is > almost as fast as the 2x-allocator (2% slower or so). > > Memory reduction: > > VSZ RSS > ----------------------------- > 1-allocator 15% 7.3% > cst-allocator 13% 6.5% > ----------------------------- After some more study I got to a second cst2-allocator that reduces almost as much as the 1-allocator but with the same (or better) speed than the 2x one! > %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > 5.0 114940 105432 pts/17 S+ 18:53 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > 5.0 111976 105488 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:03 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 > 5.0 114872 105416 pts/17 S+ 18:54 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: 1 5.1 113224 105820 pts/17 S+ 13:57 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 5.0 112948 105740 pts/17 S+ 13:58 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 5.0 115528 105628 pts/17 S+ 13:59 0:02 ./dillo-fltk step: cst2 So now we have: ----------------------------- Memory reduction: VSZ RSS ----------------------------- 1-allocator 15% 7.3% cst-allocator 13% 6.5% cst2-allocator 15% 7.3% ----------------------------- Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2008

[patch] Region is no Shape

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:41:06PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > attached patch cleans up Region. It no longer derives from Shape. > Region has grown pretty specialize for handling redraws. Also it was > never used as Shape object anyway. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 23, 2008

[patch] cleanup ZoneAllocator

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:38:42PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > here comes me ZoneAllocator cleanup again. This time without the > questionable strlen() stuff. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 23, 2008

form.cc: more refactoring

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:58:41AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:37:22PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 08:35:57AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > > > > Committed, except 00 and 05. > > > > > > > > 00: The stash buffer may hold a script, in that case > > > > parse_stash is not as clear as parse_entities. > > > > > > Would a better name make the change acceptable? For instance, > > > Html_parse_stash_entries() ? > > > > Html_parse_stash_entities() ? > > > > Why is it better than the traditional a_Html_parse_entities()? > > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I read you as saying that the new > function a_Html_parse_stash() was not very well named, and I meant to > suggest a_Html_parse_stash_entities() as an improvement. If you were > saying that the refactoring itself is confusing then I misread you. I find the generic a_Html_parse_entities() OK. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 23, 2008

[patch] Region is no Shape

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi, attached patch cleans up Region. It no longer derives from Shape. Region has grown pretty specialize for handling redraws. Also it was never used as Shape object anyway. Cheers, Johannes

June 23, 2008

[patch] cleanup ZoneAllocator

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi, here comes me ZoneAllocator cleanup again. This time without the questionable strlen() stuff. Cheers, Johannes

June 23, 2008

patch: Re: [Dillo-dev] back to that SELECT segfault

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:05:29AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > In SELECT, if standard_widget_colors is set, color and backgroundColor > > are set to NULL. This tells FltkResource::setWidgetStyle() to leave > > the colors on the widget alone. > > > > If an inline element inside a SELECT calls > > style->color->getColor() or style->backgroundColor->getColor(), > > we get that crash. > > > > This currently means FONT and IMG. > > OBJECT and A would as well if that a_Color_vc code were uncommented. > > > > options: > > - four IN_SELECT tests. > > - letting Html_stack_cleanup_at_open() be called for inline elements > > in order to close the SELECT or something if IN_SELECT and the new tag > > isn't OPTION or OPTGROUP. > > - generating our own standard widget colors to put into color and > > backgroundColor. > > > > I don't like the first one because someone innocently adding a > > getColor somewhere in the future will never know about this danger. > > (a good example would be adding the a_Color_vc to open_frame()) > > Without a deep understanding of the code involved, I'd > prefer the third option (standard widget colors) as it looks > more general and simple as a solution. All right.

June 23, 2008