Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Description • 16 years ago

I wanted to narrow down bug 471505 (on mozilla-1.9.1),
"instead" I found this one (on mozilla-central).

[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20081230 SeaMonkey/2.0a3pre] (home, optim default) (W2Ksp4)
(http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6201c0669e15
 +http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2854a16a867f)

{
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | runtests-leaks | leaked 484 bytes during test execution (threshold set at 8 bytes)
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | runtests-leaks | leaked 1 instance of nsComponentManagerImpl with size 276 bytes
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | runtests-leaks | leaked 2 instances of nsLocalFile with size 88 bytes each (176 bytes total)
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | runtests-leaks | leaked 3 instances of nsStringBuffer with size 8 bytes each (32 bytes total)
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | runtests-leaks | leaked 2 instances of nsTArray_base with size 4 bytes each (8 bytes total)
}

In tests\dom\tests\mochitest\dom-level2-html,
any of test_HTMLBodyElement07.html to test_HTMLBodyElement12.html triggers this;
and some/all of test_HTMLDocument01.html to test_HTMLDocument27.html do too.

	Bernd
	Comment 1 • 16 years ago

Does this leak also on ff or is this seamonkey only?

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 2 • 16 years ago

[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090101 Minefield/3.2a1pre] (home, optim default) (W2Ksp4)
(http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e807ec425ad7)

Same leak.

Why didn't the Firefox tinderboxes catch this ? :-/

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 3 • 16 years ago

(In reply to comment #2)
> Why didn't the Firefox tinderboxes catch this ? :-/

Odd: "WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test" (and Linux and MacOSX) reports "no leaks detected!" before/after/since bug 427878 checkin.

My build is on Windows 2000 and has --disable-vista-sdk-requirements...

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 4 • 15 years ago

Fwiw, I see this leak when running
|include ../../layout/base/crashtests/crashtests.list|
too.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 5 • 15 years ago

[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b5pre) Gecko/20090424 SeaMonkey/2.0b1pre] (home, optim default) (W2Ksp4)
(http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/d77750c8a7b8
 +http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/b7fd81f51c6e)

I reproduce with 1.9.1 too.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 6 • 15 years ago

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox3.5/1244579133.1244583196.14718.gz
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-1.9.1 unit test on 2009/06/09 13:25:33
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1244582652.1244588660.31973.gz
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/06/09 14:24:12
crashtest + mochitest-plain

This started to happen on FF 3.5/3.6 box(es), with no checkins:
obviously related to the maintenance:
{
The following will be landed:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=491298 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474572 - OPSI deployment on win32 slaves
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495533 - Java update on win32 slaves
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=494971 - Add 10 new slaves to Talos Try
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495610 - whitespace changes to some of our Buildbot code
}

Bug 495533 is the most probable candidate,
and I'm also using the new "Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U13" plugin atm!

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 7 • 15 years ago

Yeah, the Java update definitely tripped this. The leak appears to be in XPCOM - cc'ing :bs and :dougt since they're authorities in that component. If either of you has a few minutes, can you see if anything sticks out to you?

If we can't fix the leak we need to back out the java update, or set a threshold.

	Doug Turner (:dougt)
	Comment 8 • 15 years ago

if you changed a npapi plugin, and we started leaking, i would start the blame in the new plugin.

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 9 • 15 years ago

Is there anyway we can confirm that? Would a backtrace help?

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 10 • 15 years ago

Doug made the excellent suggestion of removing the Java plugin and testing again. And indeed, without the java plugin we don't leak. I'm going to take the rest of this back to bug 495533, but it looks like we'll need a leak threshold to deal with the orange.

I'm working on a patch to do that so we can fix this perma-orange state.

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 11 • 15 years ago

Josh volunteered to track down this leak.

	Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)
	Comment 12 • 15 years ago

The Java upgrade on the Firefox builders is also hitting a 484 byte leak running crashtest. eg http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1244617102.1244625811.23152.gz - looks the same as comment #0.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 13 • 15 years ago

(In reply to comment #12)
> - looks the same as comment #0.

Reported in comment 4 and comment 6 indeed!

	Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]
	Comment 14 • 15 years ago

This only leaks when you instantiate the plugin, right? So when you actually run some DOM manipluation code that requires Java?

Don't think we'll block Firefox 3.5 on a 400 byte leak that only happens under those circumstances, please feel free to renominate if I'm misinterpreting.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 15 • 15 years ago

(In reply to comment #14)

(Fwiw, I think I have a real life JavaWebStart case (on a private "bank" site) where I see a continuous leak increase of SeaMonkey process "and" a shutdown hang of the external Java process (only).
But I haven't tried to confirm/pinpoint these yet.
Mentioning it here, just in case someone else would run into something like that.)

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 16 • 15 years ago

Jesse, why abuse bug 438871? This is not intermittent.

	Jesse Ruderman
	Comment 17 • 15 years ago

Sorry, I saw orange attributed to an old bug and assumed it was intermittent.  I guess it's actually tied to the version of Java on each machine?

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 18 • 15 years ago

(In reply to comment #17)
> Sorry, I saw orange attributed to an old bug and assumed it was intermittent. 
> I guess it's actually tied to the version of Java on each machine?

For the record, all of the slaves running m-c, 1.9.1, and tracemonkey builds have Java 6 on them. Only the try slaves haven't been updated yet.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 19 • 15 years ago

1.9.2 trunk:


http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1246020805.1246027759.11985.gz&fulltext=1
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/06/26 05:53:25

Still leaks.


http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1246028465.1246036567.16139.gz&fulltext=1
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/06/26 08:01:05

Doesn't leak anymore.

Fix timeframe:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?startdate=2009-06-26+05%3A50%3A24&enddate=2009-06-26+07%3A58%3A06
A few changesets, related to (Java) Plugin!


[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090711 SeaMonkey/2.1a1pre] (home, optim default) (W2Ksp4)
(http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/47bfcd275ede
 +http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/291cbe3374b9)

No more leak either.


*****

1.9.1 branch:


http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox3.5/1247342838.1247348243.6059.gz&fulltext=1
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-1.9.1 unit test on 2009/07/11 13:07:18

Still leaks.


http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey2.0/1247314133.1247321343.27351.gz&fulltext=1
WINNT 5.2 comm-1.9.1 unit test on 2009/07/11 05:08:53

Does not leak.
KaiRo, which Java plugin do the Windows SeaMonkey boxes use? (Were they upgraded to v6r14?)

	Robert Kaiser
	Comment 20 • 15 years ago

no upgrade to v6r14 was done, we still have build 1.5.0_10-b03 right now.

	Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) Reporter
	Comment 21 • 15 years ago

(In reply to comment #20)
> no upgrade to v6r14 was done

Now done in bug 503507 and leaking (on m-1.9.1).