bug#38345: 27.0.50; Permanent increase in memory consumption after opening images (or pdfs)

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

> Please see also the recent discussion in
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/38187#95

Thanks.

Similar to that discussion, I tried to force clearing the image cache
after killing each image buffer.

#+begin_sec emacs-lisp
(dolist (file (directory-files "~/Tosort/pictures&photos/" 'full ".*jpg"))
  (find-file file)
  (mapc #'kill-buffer (seq-filter (apply-partially #'string-match ".+.jpg$") (mapcar #'buffer-name (buffer-list))))
  (garbage-collect)
  (clear-image-cache t))
#+end_src

The resulting memory consumption graph is attached.
The memory increase almost disappeared (remaining heap size becomes
~40Mb in comparison ~400Mb in the version with just garbage collect).

Just calling (clear-image-cache) after cycling over opening/killing
the image buffers still results in ~400Mb (it has no effect, basically).

The above result is confusing since the all the code I tried to run so
far had (setq image-cache-eviction-delay 5). Since, cycling over all the
images usually took >1min, cache clearing supposed to happen at least
several times during opening/killing the image buffers.

To understand further, I tried to disable automatic cache clearing
completely (setq image-cache-eviction-delay 5000). The resulting memory
consumption is ~400Mb, but a few tens of Mb higher in comparison with
(setq image-cache-eviction-delay 5).

It appears to me that clearing image cache has some problem when there
is a relatively large number of images in the cache already.


Regards,
Ihor


[-- Attachment #2: images-seq-flush.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22584 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]



Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>> Thanks for the links. I got to know more about memory management now.
>> Now, it is clear why the memory is consumption is so high when I open a
>> bunch of images at the same time. However, it still does not explain my
>> observations during usual workflow.
>
> Please see also the recent discussion in
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/38187#95