What does your activity monitor think? Maybe it is the browser that is bloating, not the swf player? Maybe there is a leak in the <html> implementation?
On 2011-05-02, at 09:13, Henry Minsky wrote: > I left my firefox running the test case last night and this morning it > did seem like it was very sluggish. But the memory profiler did not > report the flash app taking any more memory. Hmm > > On Sunday, May 1, 2011, Henry Minsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't see anything suspicious, at least not after a few minutes. Screen >> shot attached of memory profiler >> It shows a flat memory usage over a period of 10 or 15 minutes. I do see a >> continuous update >> >> of the number of method closures allocated, but I think those must be >> getting gc'd because total memory usage does not budge >> >> >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:19 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks! >> >> On 2011-05-01, at 20:09, Henry Minsky wrote: >> >>> Oh I see you did. I will run the profiler on my test case >>> >>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Henry Minsky <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> there is some kind of memory allocation trace in the flex profiler view in >>>> Flash Builder. I will try running >>>> the app in it. You didn't check in the patch yet, right? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:02 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is there any sort of a leak tool that you can run on teh swf with your >>>>> test case? >>>>> >>>>> I have a bad feeling, because I left your test case open last night and >>>>> when I came back my machine was totally hung. I had to force reboot it to >>>>> get it back... >>>>> >>>>> On 2011-04-29, at 18:39, Henry Minsky wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Go for it >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, April 29, 2011, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Scratch that. I just tried it. Doesn't improve things that I can see. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about I just check in with the invalidatePixelAligned chopped out? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2011-04-29, at 18:24, Henry Minsky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that is a good idea, I'll revert it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 29, 2011, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> One other thought: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now that we draw more conservatively, maybe we don't need to pace the >>>>> mouse-move events? What if we try reverting r19117? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-29, at 15:25, Henry Minsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also, subjectively I feel like doubling the frame rate makes it more >>>>>>>>>> responsive >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LFCApplication.stage.frameRate=60 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> maybe we should make this a default? Or is that an un-neighborly >>>>> thing for >>>>>>>>>> a downloaded >>>>>>>>>> app to do? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Henry Minsky < >>>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All the calls to invalidatePixelAlignedChildren look like they >>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> missing >>>>>>>>>>> their 'if' clause.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> public function setY ( newy:Number ):void { >>>>>>>>>>> _y = newy; >>>>>>>>>>> // Box attributes get scaled >>>>>>>>>>> y = newy + ((marginTop + borderTopWidth + paddingTop) * >>>>> scaleY); >>>>>>>>>>> { invalidatePixelAlignedChildren(); } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Henry Minsky < >>>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I stub out the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> function invalidatePixelAlignedChildren () { >>>>>>>>>>>> return; >>> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [email protected]
