Currently, ScrollableArea::scrollAnimator() will create a ScrollAnimator to return if m_scrollAnimator is null. Because of this, we end up creating a ScrollAnimator for nearly every frame on webpages. For example, we allocate 22 ScrollAnimators on http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2512881 even though only the main document needs one. <rdar://problem/11070121> Patch forthcoming.
Created attachment 133547 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 133547 [details] Patch nepotism=me
Thanks Geoff! Committed http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111896
Comment on attachment 133547 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=133547&action=review > Source/WebCore/platform/ScrollableArea.h:99 > + ScrollAnimator* getExistingScrollAnimator() const { return m_scrollAnimator.get(); } We usually avoid 'get' in accessors like this.
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 133547 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=133547&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/platform/ScrollableArea.h:99 > > + ScrollAnimator* getExistingScrollAnimator() const { return m_scrollAnimator.get(); } > > We usually avoid 'get' in accessors like this. Would you prefer existingScrollAnmator()?
Changed the name to existingScrollAnimator() : http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111901
(In reply to comment #6) > Changed the name to existingScrollAnimator() : http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111901 Hm, I'm still confused by your terminology. I would have suggested to rename scrollAnimator() to ensureScrollAnimator(), and existingScrollAnimator() to scrollAnimator() - that's how we do it in numerous other places in WebCore. scrollAnimator() sounds just like a simple accessor, anyone not reading the comment in the header, won't know it creates something. Would you want to prepare another patch? :-)