hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Description • 8 years ago

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
Build ID: 20160802213348

Steps to reproduce:

To the URL :http://www.weather.com.cn/live/





Actual results:

quick and huge memory used is occurr
In my 2G RAM and use ZRAM of Linux 4.5 
occasional occur OOM
3.16 no occur OOM ,but still with huge memory used is occur


Expected results:

I thank that should least as Chromium memory use range in 1MB~50MB approximate,but Firefox use too many memory than Chromium

	Mayank Bansal
	Comment 1 • 8 years ago

can confirm that the page uses 1.6GB ram 
However, it reduces to ~950MB in a few seconds.

	hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Comment 2 • 8 years ago

More information about that Bug:
Toggle to other tab will reduce memory used to near normal as approximate Chromium
Even if again toggle to this problem tab

	hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Comment 3 • 8 years ago

(In reply to mayankleoboy1 from comment #1)
> can confirm that the page uses 1.6GB ram 
> However, it reduces to ~950MB in a few seconds.

~950MB not is normal case
I use the command "watch -n 1 free -m" to compare before and after

	hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Comment 4 • 8 years ago

(In reply to hsrmxj78421 from comment #2)
> More information about that Bug:
> Toggle to other tab will reduce memory used to near normal as approximate
> Chromium
> Even if again toggle to this problem tab

This way not work for 49.0.1

	hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Comment 5 • 8 years ago

Although disable JavaScript can reduce memory use in this case,but about:config showen that memory used by many huge size image file.
However,Chromium normal working for this page

	Mike Hommey [:glandium]
	Comment 6 • 8 years ago

Main contribution here is:

├────777,798,296 B (31.84%) -- images
│    ├──776,252,104 B (31.77%) -- content
│    │  ├──774,713,616 B (31.71%) -- raster
│    │  │  ├──774,713,328 B (31.71%) -- used
│    │  │  │  ├───31,338,640 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120500.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────122,976 B (00.01%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120300.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120310.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120320.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120330.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120340.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120350.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120400.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120410.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120420.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120430.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120440.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
│    │  │  │  ├───31,334,544 B (01.28%) -- image(3000x2601, http://d1.weather.com.cn/newwebgis/radar/5m/QPFRef_201610120450.png)
│    │  │  │  │   ├──31,215,664 B (01.28%) ── locked/surface(3000x2601)/decoded-heap
│    │  │  │  │   └─────118,880 B (00.00%) ── source
(...)

I haven't looked at what the page actually does at the code level, but these are all the decoded images for all the rainfall radar overlays for all the times that can be showed through the slider and/or with the play button. They're very much larger than what is actually displayed, and it looks like we shouldn't be keeping so much of the decoded data around.

Moving to ImageLib because decoded-heap comes from imgLoader, but that might as well be caused by something upper in the stack.

	hsrmxj78421 Reporter
	Comment 7 • 7 years ago

[Tracking Requested - why for this release]:This bug also existing on "Mozilla Firefox 52.3.0"

	Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]
	Comment 8 • 6 years ago

This issue is out of scope for the kinds of fixes we backport to the ESR release. Reporter, does this reproduce for you with Firefox 58 as well?

	Mayank Bansal
	Comment 9 • 6 years ago

Can still reproduce on the latest nightly

	Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]
	Comment 10 • 6 years ago

Thanks for checking.

	Timothy Nikkel (:tnikkel)
	Comment 11 • 6 years ago

The page is using flipping opacity between 0/1 on a series of images to do an image animation. We don't consider opacity when determining if an image is visible so all the images are considered visible. If the website used display:none instead the memory use problem would go away but would likely have another problem: we don't sync decode images so the animation would appear "flashy". The website very well might be using opacity to work around this. If we implemented the "decoding=sync" attribute for images that would give this website a way to fix this.