4 ms·

Isn't it cheap compared to the typical browser bloat though?

• saagarjha 6y ago
  What bloat are you talking about?
  • SilasX 6y ago
    Wait, what? You mean, you're claiming that browsers are aggressively written to minimize memory usage for a given unit of functionality? Because that would be a hard case to make. I just opened example.com (a tiny, static site) in Chrome. Chrome's task manager says that tab is using 16 MB. You're saying that the minimal overhead that a new process would add is significant compared to that? Because I see numerous processes in the OS task manager right now with a significantly smaller memory footprint. If you just dropped the /s, and I didn't get the joke, consider me whooshed :-p
    • saagarjha 6y ago
      I am a bit confused, the only thing I've claimed is that making processes isn't necessarily something you can do because they use up non-negligible amounts of RAM. Sure, for a small static site this amount may not be a lot, but for most websites a hundred MB or more is the norm per tab. When browsers first started going multi-process memory usage ballooned because of the overhead, and while improvements are continually being made keeping everything in the same process would still be of significant benefit to memory usage.
      • SilasX 6y ago
        Yes, a tab might 100s of MB of RAM. The question is how much more a tab would use by virtue of being a separate process vs not. Do you have a figure for this, and a reason a process spawn inherently requires a significant amount as a percentage of what browsers are using anyway?