Process count limit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Process count limit

Michael Catanzaro-2
Hi,

I was reading
https://medium.com/mozilla-tech/the-search-for-the-goldilocks-browser-and-why-firefox-may-be-just-right-for-you-1f520506aa35

Currently we have a problem with Epiphany using too much memory when
lots of tabs are open, since -- with a few exceptions -- each tab runs
in its own web process. This is in contrast to Chrome, in which each
website shares the same web process.

I kinda think Chrome's approach is the best, but we don't have
infrastructure to implement that right now. We do have infrastructure
to set a Firefox-style process count limit. Setting the limit to four
processes would be a simple GSettings change.

Advantage: significant memory use reduction when many tabs are open

Disadvantage: a single crashing tab will crash a quarter of your tabs,
instead of only itself

Thoughts?

Michael

_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Process count limit

Jérémy Lal

2017-06-15 22:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Catanzaro <[hidden email]>:
Hi,

I was reading https://medium.com/mozilla-tech/the-search-for-the-goldilocks-browser-and-why-firefox-may-be-just-right-for-you-1f520506aa35

Currently we have a problem with Epiphany using too much memory when lots of tabs are open, since -- with a few exceptions -- each tab runs in its own web process. This is in contrast to Chrome, in which each website shares the same web process.

I kinda think Chrome's approach is the best, but we don't have infrastructure to implement that right now. We do have infrastructure to set a Firefox-style process count limit. Setting the limit to four processes would be a simple GSettings change.

Advantage: significant memory use reduction when many tabs are open

Disadvantage: a single crashing tab will crash a quarter of your tabs, instead of only itself

Thoughts?

If it's a max of four processes by separate epiphany window, that would just be perfect.

Jérémy



_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Process count limit

Michael Catanzaro-2
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jérémy Lal <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2017-06-15 22:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Catanzaro <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was reading
>> https://medium.com/mozilla-tech/the-search-for-the-goldilocks-browser-and-why-firefox-may-be-just-right-for-you-1f520506aa35
>>
>> Currently we have a problem with Epiphany using too much memory when
>> lots of tabs are open, since -- with a few exceptions -- each tab
>> runs in its own web process. This is in contrast to Chrome, in which
>> each website shares the same web process.
>>
>> I kinda think Chrome's approach is the best, but we don't have
>> infrastructure to implement that right now. We do have
>> infrastructure to set a Firefox-style process count limit. Setting
>> the limit to four processes would be a simple GSettings change.
>>
>> Advantage: significant memory use reduction when many tabs are open
>>
>> Disadvantage: a single crashing tab will crash a quarter of your
>> tabs, instead of only itself
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> If it's a max of four processes by separate epiphany window, that
> would just be perfect.
>
> Jérémy

Hm, the limit would be independent of the number of windows
unfortunately. That would be difficult to change. You could get around
it by using 'epiphany -p' on the command line to get a separate
instance, or by using incognito mode ('epiphany -i').

Michael

_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Process count limit

Michael Gratton
In reply to this post by Michael Catanzaro-2
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Catanzaro
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Advantage: significant memory use reduction when many tabs are open
> Disadvantage: a single crashing tab will crash a quarter of your
> tabs, instead of only itself Thoughts?

I'd like to see process-per-window, since I typically work with a
window-per-task model that typically sees something like up to 5 or 6
windows with 10-15 tabs each commonly being open.

While people shouldn't have to worry about things like managing memory
use and mitigating web process crashes, process-per-window at least
gives people a means of doing so without having to mess around with
settings, since it provides a direct correlation between resource use
and the most obvious GUI construct - a window. Want to free up some
memory? Close a browser window.

This currently works with process-per-tab, but won't necessarily work
if sharing a web process across multiple windows. That sucks since
people seem to be used to the idea that closing a window can make their
computer run less slowly, and it breaks that mental model.

Process-per-window obviously won't be an improvement over
process-per-tab for people that use many windows with one or few tabs
each, but having 50+ windows open seems unlikely. OTOH, it also doens't
help people with a single window an 50+ tabs, which might be a more
common case. Hence n-processes-per-window sees to be the best solution,
if possible.

Couldn't n-processes-per-window be implemented using
webkit_web_view_new_with_related_view() magic?

//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ <http://mjog.vee.net/>


_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Process count limit

Michael Catanzaro-2
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Michael Gratton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Couldn't n-processes-per-window be implemented using
> webkit_web_view_new_with_related_view() magic?

It absolutely could, we'd just have to do it at the Epiphany level
instead of using the WebKit setting that handles this automatically.

Michael

_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
Loading...