[webkit-dev] setTimeout as browser speed throttle
darin at chromium.org
Wed Oct 1 17:03:25 PDT 2008
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 1:24 AM, David Hyatt wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:52 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> I can appreciate that you aren't interested in revisiting this problem
> after having resolved it finally by adding the clamp. I believe you when
> you say you had compelling evidence too.
> We are interested in revisiting the problem or we wouldn't be suggesting a
> new high resolution timer API.
> I'm with Hyatt. The reason we are having this thread is precisely to
> revisit the problem.
Good to hear. From what you wrote, I thought you were disinterested in
considering lower clamp values for setTimeout, and that is what I was
referring to. (I knew you supported a high-res timer API.) From what you
say below, however, I see that you are interested in lowering the clamp
value. Sorry for misunderstanding.
> I don't know how clear I was in the previous email, but basically it can
> take a lot of time before you see problems. What happens is a site makes a
> change, screws up and puts in an unintentional setTimeout loop, and then
> they pwn the CPU of a browser with no clamp. They don't discover it because
> every browser has a pretty high clamp. When we had these issues, they'd
> basically crop up one site at a time every so often. The good news is that
> usually the sites would fix the problems, but the bad news is it could take
> a while, and angry users would be switching to Firefox.
> That is what I was alluding to when I said it took us 3.5 years to first
> realize we had to add the clamp. The problems come and go, but they are
> consistently a problem, and it can take a while to realize it.
Yup, I can totally see that happening. This is why I highlighted our
architecture, which helps more squarely place blame on misbehaving sites.
That should help developers and users more easily see who to blame, which
should help these issues get more visibility and be resolved more quickly.
I may be wrong, but I'm curious to find out.
Laptops on battery power are not an issue since we wouldn't want to enable
high-res timers on those systems. timeBeginPeriod(1) being too costly
> However, the bug Mike cited seems to mention problems with the 1ms limit on
> some real sites: <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=792>.<http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=792> At
> least 5 sites are mentioned, including nytimes.
> I think we are converging on some good solutions (somewhat lower basic
> clamp, new highres API) and I regret if this thread has felt hostile to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev