Important: Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct

Potential WebView memory leak on a script-rich application (graph included)



  • Hi,

    we're using QT 5.10 with webview deployed on a linux box with AMD 9260 GPU directly through QT (no Xorg).

    What you can see below is a graph of WebView memory consumption on a system with a continuous usage of the application that's running inside it. The app is rich - it's a game that continously runs inside webview through qtwebenengine (which does not show any signs of a memory leak). It does a lot of JS executions, uses shaders and webgl through PIXI JS.

    0_1553529979982_879b5d6f-5360-4a34-bd76-b8ea114bbc31-image.png

    Below you can see the same webview application but the site that's loaded does not include any "active" JS (meaning - it does not execute any meaningful scripts .e.g shows an image)

    0_1553530251460_d169cf51-0bf9-408a-984a-f1b8054b478e-image.png

    Where should we look for the memleak? What would be the best way to debug it?


  • Moderators

    Have you tried some newer version of Qt? Perhaps it is fixed already.



  • Unfortunately upgrading is not an option right now as we're using buildroot-based embedded linux and it comes with a fixed version of QT and other dependencies.

    What's worth mentionin is that we were getting the same memory leak on QT version 5.6.



  • Not sure how to mark is as "solved" but upgrading to 5.11 solved the problem but incured additional problems. However 5.11 does not produce a memory leak anymore.


  • Lifetime Qt Champion

    @wojtekzin said in Potential WebView memory leak on a script-rich application (graph included):

    Not sure how to mark is as "solved"

    The button "Topic Tools" contains that option. Thanks for reporting back.



  • @wojtekzin

    upgrading to 5.11 solved the problem but incured additional problems

    Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I believe I have seen posts stating that 5.12 is a better release to go for than 5.11, was 5.12 not suitable for you?


Log in to reply