jam: It's a good idea; we came to the same conclusion.
I implemented the about:ipc UI as part of our performance focus last week.
However, when I hooked it up, I noticed the logging itself was never fully
ported from Windows; it uses a cross-process waitable event, but
waitable_event_posix.cc isn't cross-process. So I'm working on that too.
jrg
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:57 AM, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Scott Hess <sh...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Mark Mentovai<m...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Well, that annoying throbber is still chewing up time, causing some
>> > amount of UI loop contention while the images, thumbnails, and icons
>> > are fetched. Windows and Linux don't have a throbber for the new tab
>> > page. We shouldn't either. Excellent, now we're down to 200ms. It's
>> > still high, but it's reasonable. It's a perceptible improvement from
>> > the 300ms we started with.
>>
>> It might be interesting to have the IO thread tag messages with the
>> time as they go by, and have the UI thread keep track of the
>> distribution of times that messages spend enqueued. Then we can set
>> goals around how fast IPCs get pulled off the queue.
>>
>
> The IPC logging code already keeps track of message dispatch time (i.e.
> from when Send() was called until the message handler started executing) and
> processing time (i.e. how long the handler took). I don't know how much of
> the UI is implemented on Mac, but on Windows this was only a few hours to
> implement, and it'll give a lot of insight on which messages are backed
> up/taking a lot of time.
>
>>
>> -scott
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
