From 35f49ad3ab5103fa349932a246eb26ea9a9c7271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: q1800 <95879668+q1800@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:29:13 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Grammar Corrections/Rewordings, URL Updates, Cleanup extra space --- ...happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/Memory-footprint:-what-happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md b/Memory-footprint:-what-happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md index d3edfb1..115990b 100644 --- a/Memory-footprint:-what-happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md +++ b/Memory-footprint:-what-happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md @@ -14,28 +14,28 @@ - Any change in the selection of filter lists, or change in the content of selected filter lists will invalidate uBO's selfie 1. Even after the growth in memory baseline, uBO's _own memory_ footprint is still quite a bit smaller than that of Adblock Plus (ABP) -- once the garbage collector does its job 1. uBO's much smaller _contributed memory_ footprint to web pages is much smaller than that of ABP - - The contributed footprint to web pages is part of the memory footprint of the web pages themselves + - The contributed footprint to web pages is part of the memory footprint of the web pages themselves - As opposed to an extension's own memory footprint, visible using Chromium's _"Task Manager"_, the contributed memory footprint to web pages cannot be easily seen by users - Though this measure is not readily visible, it's where you get the biggest bang for the buck with uBO relative to ABP -- because uBO **does not** inject thousands of CSS rules into pages and embedded frames (unlike ABP) Once you have reached the point where there is a valid uBO selfie, uBO will run the most efficiently. -The next time you launch uBO and there is a valid selfie, the load time will be a fraction of the load time when no selfie is available [1], and uBO's baseline memory footprint will be smaller than when uBO launches without a selfie available. +The next time you launch uBO with a valid selfie, the load time will be a fraction of that when no selfie is available [1]. uBO's baseline memory footprint will be smaller than when uBO launches with no selfie. -So my point is that uBO will perform at best efficiency if you give it time to optimize itself after installation: In subsequent launches, uBO will perform more efficiently than what you may have observed immediately after you installed it. +So my point is that uBO will perform at its best efficiency if you give it time to optimize itself after installation: In subsequent launches, uBO will perform more efficiently than what you may have observed immediately after installation. [1] See *** Also, if you want to look at memory figures, in addition to the above notes regarding garbage collection, keep in mind: -- The [Chromium bug](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) which causes systematically a memory leak when opening an extension popup UI. -- Currently opened extension option page(s) contribute to increase the extension's memory use -- Sometimes a browser's garbage collector ("GC") is lazier than others, i.e. it may takes longer to kick in. - - In my benchmarks, it has happened I had to force a GC cycle using dev tools. +- The [Chromium bug](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) causes systematic memory leaks when opening an extension popup UI. +- Currently opened extension options page(s) contribute to increasing the extension's memory use +- Sometimes, a browser's garbage collector ("GC") is lazier than others; therefore, it may take longer to kick in. + - In my benchmarks, it has happened that I had to force a GC cycle using dev tools. *** -- Notes: the above is especially true for Chromium-based browser. However with the [early preview of the Firefox version](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/27#issuecomment-67308172), the memory churning referred to above seems to result in much smaller memory peak usage. +- Notes: The above is especially true for a Chromium-based browser. However, with the [early preview of the Firefox version](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/27#issuecomment-67308172), the memory churning referred to above seems to result in much smaller memory peak usage. - Related: ["Notes on memory benchmarks, selfies"](./Notes-on-memory-benchmarks,-selfies) -- Beware: ["Popup UI of extensions causes systematic memory leaks"](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) +- Beware: ["Popup UI of extensions causes systematic memory leaks"](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500)