Add a `kind` field to memory reports.
This is used for two memory reporting improvements.
- It's used to distinguish "explicit" memory reports from others. This
mirrors the same categorization that is used in Firefox, and gives a single
tree that's the best place to look. It replaces the "pages" tree which
was always intended to be a temporary stand-in for "explicit".
- It's used to computed "heap-unclassified" values for both the jemalloc
and system heaps, both of which are placed into the "explicit" tree.
Example output:
```
| 114.99 MiB -- explicit
| 52.34 MiB -- jemalloc-heap-unclassified
| 46.14 MiB -- system-heap-unclassified
| 14.95 MiB -- url(file:///home/njn/moz/servo2/../servo-static-suite/wikipe
dia/Guardians%20of%20the%20Galaxy%20(film)%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyc
lopedia.html)
| 7.32 MiB -- js
| 3.07 MiB -- malloc-heap
| 3.00 MiB -- gc-heap
| 2.49 MiB -- used
| 0.34 MiB -- decommitted
| 0.09 MiB -- unused
| 0.09 MiB -- admin
| 1.25 MiB -- non-heap
| 1.36 MiB -- layout-worker-3-local-context
| 1.34 MiB -- layout-worker-0-local-context
| 1.24 MiB -- layout-worker-1-local-context
| 1.24 MiB -- layout-worker-4-local-context
| 1.16 MiB -- layout-worker-2-local-context
| 0.89 MiB -- layout-worker-5-local-context
| 0.38 MiB -- layout-task
| 0.31 MiB -- display-list
| 0.07 MiB -- local-context
| 1.56 MiB -- compositor-task
| 0.78 MiB -- surface-map
| 0.78 MiB -- layer-tree
```
The heap-unclassified values dominate the "explicit" tree because reporter
coverage is still quite poor.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6802)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Implement getComputedStyle
It's not quite done but can probably be reviewed anyway.
I still need to finish up a few of the ToCss impls, I just got lazy and wanted to make sure things worked.
The computation of the used values is definitely not right, I'm going to investigate that.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6798)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This is used for two memory reporting improvements.
- It's used to distinguish "explicit" memory reports from others. This
mirrors the same categorization that is used in Firefox, and gives a single
tree that's the best place to look. It replaces the "pages" tree which
was always intended to be a temporary stand-in for "explicit".
- It's used to computed "heap-unclassified" values for both the jemalloc
and system heaps, both of which are placed into the "explicit" tree.
Example output:
```
| 114.99 MiB -- explicit
| 52.34 MiB -- jemalloc-heap-unclassified
| 46.14 MiB -- system-heap-unclassified
| 14.95 MiB -- url(file:///home/njn/moz/servo2/../servo-static-suite/wikipe
dia/Guardians%20of%20the%20Galaxy%20(film)%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyc
lopedia.html)
| 7.32 MiB -- js
| 3.07 MiB -- malloc-heap
| 3.00 MiB -- gc-heap
| 2.49 MiB -- used
| 0.34 MiB -- decommitted
| 0.09 MiB -- unused
| 0.09 MiB -- admin
| 1.25 MiB -- non-heap
| 1.36 MiB -- layout-worker-3-local-context
| 1.34 MiB -- layout-worker-0-local-context
| 1.24 MiB -- layout-worker-1-local-context
| 1.24 MiB -- layout-worker-4-local-context
| 1.16 MiB -- layout-worker-2-local-context
| 0.89 MiB -- layout-worker-5-local-context
| 0.38 MiB -- layout-task
| 0.31 MiB -- display-list
| 0.07 MiB -- local-context
| 1.56 MiB -- compositor-task
| 0.78 MiB -- surface-map
| 0.78 MiB -- layer-tree
```
The heap-unclassified values dominate the "explicit" tree because reporter
coverage is still quite poor.
Dispose layout data for every node removed from the tree
Fix for #6754.
cc @jdm – I believe this is all that's required for the fix, but until I get a better sense of #6813, I'm unsure of the best way to test this.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6815)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Continued from #6536
The current implementations of `ChildNode::before` and
`ChildNode::after` do not match the WHATWG spec. This commit updates the
implementations to match the spec.
Our current implementation of `ChildNode::after` passes all the WPT
tests. So I made sure to add a regression test that failed with the
current implementation. There are a few other unit tests I added
to exhaust other corner cases I encountered.
compositing: Tick animations right away when content enables animations.
Otherwise, we have to wait for the next vsync. This was capping the
framerate of the particles demo at 30 FPS in most cases.
r? @glennw
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6822)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This should help fix some intermittent failures where this error message was
printed intertwined with the test results, causing wptrunner to not notice
the results.
Implement Element.client{Top,Left,Width,Height}
This isn't done, but contains a working implementation of at least `clientTop`. Feedback would be much appreciated: it's probably far from ideal.
Implementing `clientLeft` is straight-forward, I think, but `clientWidth` and `clientHeight` require accessing the `border_box` - and I don't know how that works, yet.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6662)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
