I've been watching for memory leaks and I think this is not a problem. We've done tests here we run the browser for a week and have seen no memory leakage. Of course, the browser is just running the ticker and not doing more fancy things like you may be doing:
top - 13:28:32 up 10 days, 21:48, 3 users, load average: 0.62, 0.70, 0.72
Tasks: 55 total, 3 running, 50 sleeping, 1 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 50.5%us, 6.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 42.8%id, 0.1%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 126220k total, 112816k used, 13404k free, 10124k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 41552k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
357 root 20 0 139m 41m 13m R 60.4 33.3 8064:54 NeTVBrowser
Compared to the number after the first day of testing:
top - 14:43:47 up 23:04, 1 user, load average: 0.69, 0.87, 0.81
Tasks: 54 total, 5 running, 47 sleeping, 1 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 65.2%us, 6.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 28.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 126220k total, 123900k used, 2320k free, 8444k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 56248k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
357 root 20 0 108m 48m 23m R 64.1 39.5 858:06.24 NeTVBrowser
As you can see here, the "res" number actually went down over time.
The first number, 108, is not a concern since it's the virt and could just reflect new dynamic libraries being accessed. The "res" is probably the number to watch. Have you seen it continue to grow in your testing?
7BAA 2E53 01C1 DCFF 497B E7F0 9699 A303 78F0 D9B9