Closed
Bug 1158404
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
[e10s] Leak of DataChannelShutdown
Categories
(Core :: WebRTC: Networking, defect, P4)
Core
WebRTC: Networking
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla44
backlog | webrtc/webaudio+ |
People
(Reporter: mccr8, Assigned: mccr8)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
jesup
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
jesup
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
When you run this:
./mach mochitest-plain --e10s --auto-close dom/media/tests/mochitest/test_dataChannel_basicDataOnly.html
The leak includes 1 DataChannelShutdown. (The rest of the stuff in there is normal for e10s).
Updated•10 years ago
|
tracking-e10s:
--- → +
Updated•9 years ago
|
backlog: --- → webRTC+
Rank: 49
Priority: -- → P4
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
This still happens, though you have to run
./mach mochitest -f plain --e10s dom/media/tests/mochitest/test_dataChannel_basicDataOnly.html
and then manually close it
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Component: WebRTC → WebRTC: Networking
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Another way to trigger this leak is with
./mach mochitest -f plain dom/media/tests/mochitest/ipc/test_ipc.html
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
It looks like this is supposed to be deleted in DataChannelShutdown::Observe(), but it is trying to observe profile-change-net-teardown, which, if I recall correctly, does not happen in the child process.
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Does it needs to listen to "content-child-shutdown" instead?
I wonder how much code still adds observers that never fire due to the arrival of e10s. It'd be interesting to instrument addObserver to warn/assert every time an observer is added in the wrong process.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
As far as I can tell, there's no need for the global: the observer service holds a strong reference and nobody else looks at the global, except to clear it in shutdown. This fixes the leak, but of course does not fix the issue of this code never running.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [:jib] from comment #4)
> I wonder how much code still adds observers that never fire due to the
> arrival of e10s. It'd be interesting to instrument addObserver to
> warn/assert every time an observer is added in the wrong process.
That's a good idea! I filed bug 1216252.
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → continuation
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8676374 -
Flags: review?(rjesup)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8676376 -
Flags: review?(rjesup)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8676374 -
Flags: review?(rjesup) → review+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8676376 -
Flags: review?(rjesup) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/12a6564962d7
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/ca1313dd7411
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/12a6564962d7
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ca1313dd7411
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
status-firefox44:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla44
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•