[webkit-dev] setTimeout as browser speed throttle

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Oct 3, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Rob Burns wrote:

> Hi Darin,
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> (I don't understand your comment about not having to have it on  
>>> all the time.  Surely if a page is asking for a fast setTimeout  
>>> repeatedly, it would be on "all the time.")
>>>
>>> My understanding is that timeBeinPeriod(1) is currently on all the  
>>> time in Chrome, even when no short-delay timers are currently  
>>> pending, thus leading to constant greater power consumption. But  
>>> there is no need for it to be on when there are not fast timers  
>>> pending. See WebCore/platform/win/SharedTimerWin.cpp. I think that  
>>> is a technically better approach than switching based on power  
>>> management state. Feedback welcome, though, and perhaps you will  
>>> still come to a different conclusion.
>>>
>>> I think that is a good idea too, but it doesn't help when a fast  
>>> setInterval is active.
>>
>> That is true. With the webkit.org version of SharedTimerWin,  
>> though, you can at least close the problematic tab when you hear  
>> your fan spin up and stop suffering any power drain. It may be that  
>> running slower is a better option.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's the trade off.  Close the offending tab or let it run,  
>> but more slowly.
>
> Another option, would be to halt timers for all unexposed tabs  
> (i.e., tabs in windows that are not the frontmost tab). Are there  
> use-cases or sites that would break with such behavior? The reason I  
> raise this option is that the loaded page represents important state  
> to the user, but when it is buried on a window, it is probably not  
> necessary for it to be actively responding to timer callbacks.  
> Closing the tab saves battery life, but burying the tab behind  
> another tab would be preferable for the user (a mobile user that may  
> not be online when that important state represented by the page  
> loaded in the tab is sought again).

There are web apps that a user may legitimately want to continue to  
work in the background. One obvious example is a web-based audio  
player, although in that case it would be a plugin or <audio> element  
continuing to do work. Still, if you're going to allow plugins and  
media elements to continue, you may as well allow timers. Other sites  
update their title on a timer in a way that is useful for a background  
tab. For example, GMail updates the unread count, which is quite  
useful on a background tab label. Given these kinds of examples, I  
think pausing anything in a background tab would not be a good choice;  
if that kind of functionality were on offer it should be a more  
explicit user gesture.

All in all, I think we shouldn't overreact on the timer issue. Sites  
that consume egregious amounts of computing resources, whether through  
timers or otherwise, are the minority, and so long as they suck in all  
browsers and not just some, users will blame the site and it will be  
pressured to change. So really (in my opinion), matching or beating  
the CPU consumption of other browsers is the target, and we shouldn't  
go crazy with novel ways to restrict timers or anything else. Just  
avoid looking broken on sites that were only tested in IE or Firefox.

Regards,
Maciej

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20081003/2a89643b/attachment.html