[webkit-dev] Issues with WebWorkers that may block Safari support
atwilson at google.com
Fri Dec 4 14:09:13 PST 2009
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
> There have been various side discussions regarding the stability/viability
> of Workers and SharedWorkers, and I wanted to make sure we understand all of
> the concerns, since as far as I know there isn't any one person who has been
> privy to all of the conversations (or maybe it's just me that's been out of
> the loop :). So I'll enumerate the issues I'm aware of below, and people can
> chime in on any that I've missed that may impact the ability to ship these
> features, and we can figure out how to get them addressed ASAP.
> 1) worker-lifecycle.html fails intermittently (
> The original report doesn't seem to be a true worker failure, but rather an
> artifact of the way GC works in JSC. Since JSC uses conservative GC, it's
> quite possible for the VM to think that there's a dangling reference to a
> Worker even though there isn't actually one, and that seems to be what's
> happening here (workers would get shutdown when the parent document closes
> regardless, so there's no actual leak). Unless someone has some idea of how
> to make this GC more deterministic, my recommendation would be to just
> disable this test and close this bug, since seemingly it's the test itself
> that is not reliable, not the underlying worker code.
> That said, there's a sporadic worker crash that seems to have started
> happening in the last week or so which I believe is a different issue -
> eseidel has glommed that crash onto the same bug, and I think we should move
> that to its own issue and see if we can collect more information about it.
> For what it's worth, we'd likely consider a resolution to this bug a
> blocker to shipping the next Safari release, but we would not consider
> disabling dedicated Workers as a solution, since we have shipped them
> If this bug could be shown to be an error in the test and inappropriate
> dependence on GC, that would be a satisfactory resolution. However, the
> sporadic failure here is a at least sometimes a crash. A crash definitely
> indicates a bug in WebKit, not in the test, even if the test itself is also
> flawed. Therefore, I would not consider disabling the test a solution until
> we have at least addressed the crash.
> That makes sense to me - we should try to address the crash, and if keeping
this test enabled is the only way to do that, that's fine. I would recommend
changing the test, however, so the test itself always passes so it's not
making the bots red while we're waiting to reproduce the crash.
Regarding Geoff's comments - I'm as convinced as I can be (based on my own
and ap's efforts stepping through the GC code - see ap's comments in the
bug) that the original failures were a "conservative GC" issue. I'm honestly
stumped as to how to move forward on that.
> 2) SharedWorkers proxy their network access to a parent document (no bug
> for this currently)
> The result of this is the application can get a network error if the user
> has multiple windows open that are using the same SharedWorker, then closes
> the parent document that is acting as a network proxy while a network
> request is in progress. While this is something that would need to change
> eventually in order to properly support exposing the appcache APIs to
> SharedWorker context, it doesn't seem like this would be any kind of ship
> blocker. Any robust application would need to deal with sporadic network
> hiccups anyway by retrying, and in practice this situation will almost never
> be encountered in the field. Perhaps people have other concerns that make
> this a ship blocker?
> I don't believe we consider this a ship blocker. Though we did discuss it
> at the same time as the other two items on the list.
> 3) Potential race conditions with Document.postTask() (
> I've suggested a simple solution to the potential race condition with
> SharedWorkers in the bug. I'd be interested in hearing whether people think
> it's a good approach or not - if so, I'm happy to submit a patch for review
> in short order. There's still the question as to whether dispatching tasks
> on a detached Document is OK or not, but I'm assuming it is (since that's
> what Dedicated workers have always done).
> Are there other issues we should be addressing as a high priority?
> This one would probably be a ship blocker. We would consider disabling
> SharedWorkers to ship if that addressed the issue.
Any objections to the solution I proposed?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev