[webkit-dev] setTimeout as browser speed throttle
hyatt at apple.com
Tue Sep 30 10:57:37 PDT 2008
We do this now. We detect repeated setTimeouts and ratchet up to 10ms
only after a repeated firing situation has been detected.
On Sep 30, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Dave Cronk wrote:
> When I use setTimeouts, often the event has already occurred. So
> rather than clamping, I'd suggest increasing the timeout up to 10ms
> rather than clamping it at the start. Thus, if I specify 0, an
> immediate check would occur, then move it up each time, maybe 1, 5,
> 10 would be optimum.
> On Monday, September 29, 2008, at 10:58PM, "David Hyatt" <hyatt at apple.com
> > wrote:
>> We encountered 100% CPU spins on amazon.com, orbitz.com,
>> among others (looking through Radar histories). This was pre-clamp.
>> Web sites make this mistake because they don't know any better, and
>> works fine in IE. It is a mistake these sites will continue to make,
>> and Chrome is the only browser that will be susceptible. Being
>> different from IE here is not a good thing. You will end up having
>> evangelize sites over and over to fix 100% CPU spins that occur only
>> in your browser. Do you really want that kind of headache?
>> A new API will let Web apps get the performance they need while
>> avoiding compatibility problems.
>> On Sep 29, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
>>>> One of the differences between Chrome and Safari is that Chrome
>>>> sets the setTimeout clamp to 1ms as opposed to 10ms. This means
>>>> that if the application writer requests a timer of less than 10ms,
>>>> Chrome will allow it, whereas Safari will clamp the minimum timeout
>>>> to 10ms. The reason we did this was to minimize browser delays
>>>> This has been a concern for some, so I wanted to bring it up here
>>>> and get an open discussion going. My hope is to lower or remove
>>>> the clamp over time.
>>>> To demonstrate the benefit, here is one test case which benefits
>>>> from removing the setTimeout clamp. Chrome gets about a ~4x
>>>> performance boost by reducing the setTimeout clamp. This
>>>> One counter argument brought up is a claim that all other browsers
>>>> use a 10ms clamp, and this might cause incompatibilities. However,
>>>> it turns out that browsers already use widely varying values.
>>> I believe all major browsers (besides Chrome) have a minimum of
>>> either 10ms or 15.6ms. I don't think this is "widely varying".
>>>> We also really haven't seen any incompatibilities due to this
>>>> change. It is true that having a lower clamp can provide an easy
>>>> way for web developers to accidentally spin the CPU, and we have
>>>> seen one high-profile instance of this. But of course spinning the
>>> The kinds of problems we are concerned about are of three forms:
>>> 1) Animations that run faster than intended by the author (it's true
>>> that 10ms vs 16ms floors will give slight differences in speed, but
>>> not nearly as much so as 10ms vs no delay).
>>> 2) Burning CPU and battery on pages where the author did not expect
>>> this to happen, and had not seen it on the browsers he or she has
>>> tested with.
>>> 3) Possibly slowing things dow if a page is using a 0-delay timer to
>>> library jQuery does this to detect when all stylesheets have loaded.
>>> Lack of clamping could actually slow down the loading it is intended
>>> to wait for.
>>> 4) Future content that is authored in one of Safari or Chrome that
>>> depends on timing of 0-delay timers will have different behavior in
>>> the other. Thus, we get less compatibility benefit for WebKit-based
>>> browsers through cross-testing.
>>> The fact that you say you have seen one high-profile instance
>>> doesn't sound to me like there are no incompatibilities. It sounds
>>> like there are some, and you have encountered at least one of them.
>>> Points 1 and 2 are what made us add the timer minimum in the first
>>> place, as documented in WebKit's SVN history and ChangeLogs. We
>>> originally did not have one, and added it for compatibility with
>>> other browsers.
>>> Currently Chrome gets an advantage on some benchmarks by accepting
>>> this compatibility risk. This leads to misleading performance
>>> comparisons, in much the same way as firing the "load" event before
>>> images are loaded would.
>>>> Here is a summary of the minimum timeout for existing browsers (you
>>>> can test your browser with this page: http://www.belshe.com/test/timers.html
>>>> Safari for the mac: 10ms
>>>> Safari for windows: 15.6ms
>>>> Firefox: 10ms or 15.6ms, depending on whether or
>>>> not Flash is running on the system
>>>> IE : 15.6ms
>>>> Chrome: 1ms (future - remove the clamp?)
>>>> So here are a couple of options:
>>>> substantially faster.
>>>> 2) Keep the clamp and let them run slowly :-)
>>>> Thoughts? It would be great to see Safari and Chrome use the same
>>>> clamping values.
>>> Or there is option 3:
>>> 3) Restore the clamp for setTimeout and setInterval to 10ms for
>>> compatibility, and add a new setHighResTimer API that does not have
>>> any lower bound.
>>> This would let aware Web applications get the same benefit, but
>>> without any of the compatibility risk to legacy Web content. The
>>> main argument against doing things this way is that it would add API
>>> surface area. But that seems like a small price to pay for removing
>>> the compatibility risk, and turning the change into something other
>>> browsers would be willing to adopt.
>>> I would like to propose an API along these lines for HTML5 but I
>>> would prefer if we can achieve consensus in the WebKit community
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
More information about the webkit-dev