EDIT: Yury's answer is better.
tl;dr IMO there is no memory leak. The positive slope is simply the effect of setInterval and setTimeout. The garbage is collected, as seen by sawtooth patterns, meaning by definition there is no memory leak. (I think).
I'm not sure there is a way to work around this so-called "memory leak." In this case, "memory leak" is referring to each call to the setInterval function increasing the memory usage, as seen by the positive slopes in the memory profiler.
The reality is that there is no actual memory leak: the garbage collector is still able to collect the memory. Memory leak by definition "occurs when a computer program acquires memory but fails to release it back to the operating system."
As shown by the memory profiles below, memory leak is not occurring. The memory usage is increasing with each function call. The OP expects that because this is the same function being called over and over, there should be no memory increase. However, this is not the case. Memory is consumed with each function call. Eventually, the garbage is collected, creating the sawtooth pattern.
I've explored several ways of rearranging the intervals, and they all lead to the same sawtooth pattern (although some attempts lead to garbage collection never happening as references were retained).
function doIt() {
console.log("hai")
}
function a() {
doIt();
setTimeout(b, 50);
}
function b() {
doIt();
setTimeout(a, 50);
}
a();
http://fiddle.jshell.net/QNRSK/14/
![]()
function b() {
var a = setInterval(function() {
console.log("Hello");
clearInterval(a);
b();
}, 50);
}
b();
http://fiddle.jshell.net/QNRSK/17/
![]()
function init()
{
var ref = window.setInterval(function() { draw(); }, 50);
}
function draw()
{
console.log('Hello');
}
init();
http://fiddle.jshell.net/QNRSK/20/
![]()
function init()
{
window.ref = window.setInterval(function() { draw(); }, 50);
}
function draw()
{
console.log('Hello');
clearInterval(window.ref);
init();
}
init();
http://fiddle.jshell.net/QNRSK/21/
![]()
Apparently setTimeout and setInterval are not officially parts of Javascript (hence they are not a part of v8). The implementation is left up to the implementer. I suggest you take a look at the implementation of setInterval and such in node.js
setInterval(draw, 50);Maybe something to do with the tight interval and the scope build-up/teardown of the anonymous function? I would've thought Chrome would cache the function though. – Pyknic