Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
Android may be susceptible to issue 560446 per requirement to replace the initial process priority binding before the initial navigation is submitted |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptiontl;dr; from issue 560446 : renderers are backgrounded when they are neither playing audio nor have any visible widgets. This logic was recently found to cause problems on desktop as it would cause foreground renderers to be backgrounded until the initial navigation had committed (per having no visible widgets before then =S!) We experimented with disabling the initial priority toggling on Windows (tracked in issue 579116) and with positive results are now moving on to making that workaround default baring a better solution (https://codereview.chromium.org/1769123002/#ps1). On Android however this is not possible as the bindings explicitly have to be set on process creation FWIU (ref. email discussion in Sep2015 between sebsg/gab/ncarter/jaekyun/sievers/klobag)... For now I will land https://codereview.chromium.org/1769123002 with a special case to not do the workaround on Android but we need to verify whether it is affected by that issue. If it is, finding a proper fix to that issue (a way to know the priority before the navigation completes) is even more critical.
,
Apr 6 2016
See crbug.com/537671 . Let's look into removing the determinedVisibility() hack and match the desktop initial state (visible?). I think we mainly have to look at the 'open in new tab' use case again and make sure we don't regress.
,
Apr 7 2016
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f commit 08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f Author: gab <gab@chromium.org> Date: Thu Apr 07 01:05:51 2016 Disable UpdateProcessPriority() on startup by default. Ref https://cbug.com/560446#c22 for experiment results. BUG=579116, 560446 , 601184 Note: PS1 copied from https://codereview.chromium.org/1763353002/ per incorrect base URL there. Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1769123002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#385608} [modify] https://crrev.com/08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f/chrome/browser/renderer_host/render_process_host_chrome_browsertest.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f/content/browser/renderer_host/render_process_host_impl.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f/content/public/common/content_features.cc [modify] https://crrev.com/08d3d94b234905611bbba4cbcbba92477aa2987f/content/public/common/content_features.h
,
Apr 13 2016
Bug triage: gab@, you seems to be working on this, let me assign this bug to you.
,
Apr 18 2016
,
Jun 1 2016
Moving this nonessential bug to the next milestone. For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot
,
Jul 14 2016
This issue has been moved once and is lower than Pri-1. Removing the milestone. For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot
,
Nov 2 2016
,
Mar 15 2017
,
Apr 17 2017
I'm looking into removing "determinedVisibility", ie the bug this got merged into. I see desktop explicitly chose to put a new process in the foreground, even if the tab is in the background. But android got left behind. Can anyone dig up this thread and forward it to me: > On Android however this is not possible as the bindings explicitly have to be set on process creation FWIU (ref. email discussion in Sep2015 between sebsg/gab/ncarter/jaekyun/sievers/klobag)... Arguably, desktop is actually being intentionally incorrect here, which makes it super hard to reason about correctness. Also I can think of reasons android might not want to behave like desktop. But I'd rather read that thread first :p
,
Apr 17 2017
imo this comment from nick is the more correct way to fix the desktop issue: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=560446#c26 I don't see any replies on that bug, so not sure if that's already been discussed to be a bad solution or something?
,
Apr 18 2017
Re. "thread between sebsg/gab/ncarter/jaekyun/sievers/klobag": looks like retention policy ate it :(... don't know that it was bound to a google group discussion (that was a mistake...). Responding to other comments on dupe bug.
,
Apr 18 2017
PS: a "mistake" you can blame me for... I've since learned to tie every meaningful discussion to a group for retention... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by klo...@chromium.org
, Apr 6 2016