Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-21 Thread Zheda Chen 
The privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability gates are requested on Chrome 
Status. Testing gate to be requested later.

"Unimportant" cross origin frames means they are cross-origin, visible but 
use non-large proportion (<75%) of page's visible area and have not 
received a user gesture. All 3 conditions should be met. The criteria are 
too long so we use "unimportant" concept here.

This intervention is spec-compliant. The spec mentions "the 
SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not guarantee that timers will run exactly 
on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, other tasks, etc, are to be expected". 
The wait length of time is implementation-defined, "which is intended to 
allow user agents to pad timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage of 
the device". In Safari, DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames 
are aligned to 30ms after reaching max nesting level (>=5). In Firefox, all 
DOM timers of frames (both same origin and cross origin) are aligned to 
16ms. See details in "Interoperability and Compatibility Risks", "Safari 
views", "Firefox views".
On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 1:27:16 AM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org wrote:

> You should be able to see all the various bits for approvals in your 
> chromestatus entry now, can you fill them out please?
>
> There have been a few questions/comments about the lack of clarity of what 
> "unimportant cross-origin frames" are. What exactly is the definition? You 
> mention that Safari has a similar intervention - how similar is it? Do we 
> know? I wonder if there is alignment for this "unimportant cross-origin 
> frame" concept, if we shouldn't specify that somehow.
> On 3/15/24 2:58 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
>
> *Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant 
> cross-origin frames*
>
> Contact emails
> zheda...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
>
> Specification
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
>
> Summary 
>
> Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
> Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
> performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
> unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
> policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
> This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
> on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
> visible but have non-large proportion of page’s visible area, and have no 
> user interaction. The alignment interval is 32ms. [1] 
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092
>
>
> Blink component
> Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>
>
> TAG review
> None
>
> TAG review status
> Not applicable
>
> Risks 
>
>
> Interoperability and Compatibility 
>
> "Other vendors already have interoperable implementation" Safari has a 
> similar intervention. DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames are 
> aligned to 30ms. In Firefox, all DOM timers (both same-origin and 
> cross-origin) in foreground pages would be aligned to 16ms. "A mature 
> specification in the relevant standards body" This intervention is 
> spec-compliant. The spec mentions "the SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not 
> guarantee that timers will run exactly on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, 
> other tasks, etc, are to be expected. ". The wait length of time is 
> implementation-defined, "which is intended to allow user agents to pad 
> timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage of the device. " 
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html "A 
> shared test suite for that specification" It isn't clear what should be 
> tested specifically for this intervention since the spec allows waiting for 
> an "implementation-defined" length.
>
>
> *Gecko*: Shipped/Shipping
> In Firefox, all DOM timers of frames (both same origin and cross origin) 
> are aligned to 16ms
>
> *WebKit*: Shipped/Shipping
> In Safari, DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames are aligned to 
> 30ms after reaching max nesting level (>=5)
>
> *Web developers*: No signals
>
> *Other signals*:
>
> WebView application risks 
>
> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
>
> None
>
>
> Debuggability 
>
> None
>
>
> Will t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-14 Thread Zheda Chen 
*Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant 
cross-origin frames*

Contact emails
zheda.c...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org

Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html

Summary

Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
visible but have non-large proportion of page’s visible area, and have no 
user interaction. The alignment interval is 32ms. [1] 
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092


Blink component
Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>

TAG review
None

TAG review status
Not applicable

Risks


Interoperability and Compatibility

"Other vendors already have interoperable implementation" Safari has a 
similar intervention. DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames are 
aligned to 30ms. In Firefox, all DOM timers (both same-origin and 
cross-origin) in foreground pages would be aligned to 16ms. "A mature 
specification in the relevant standards body" This intervention is 
spec-compliant. The spec mentions "the SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not 
guarantee that timers will run exactly on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, 
other tasks, etc, are to be expected. ". The wait length of time is 
implementation-defined, "which is intended to allow user agents to pad 
timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage of the device. " 
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html "A 
shared test suite for that specification" It isn't clear what should be 
tested specifically for this intervention since the spec allows waiting for 
an "implementation-defined" length.


*Gecko*: Shipped/Shipping
In Firefox, all DOM timers of frames (both same origin and cross origin) 
are aligned to 16ms

*WebKit*: Shipped/Shipping
In Safari, DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames are aligned to 
30ms after reaching max nesting level (>=5)

*Web developers*: No signals

*Other signals*:

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

None


Debuggability

None


Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
<https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
?
Yes

This intervention doesn't require changes to the spec. Timers are already 
covered by Web Platform Tests.


Flag name on chrome://flags
None

Finch feature name
ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers

Requires code in //chrome?
False

Tracking bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028

Launch bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028

Estimated milestones
Shipping on desktop
123
DevTrial on desktop
121
Shipping on Android
123
DevTrial on Android
121

Anticipated spec changes

Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or 
interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues 
in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may 
introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of 
the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
None

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

Links to previous Intent discussions

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
<https://chromestatus.com/>.


On Friday, March 15, 2024 at 6:24:06 AM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org wrote:

The privacy and security teams review all intents, so requesting reviews 
and answering the relevant questionnaires is the best path forward.

Looking forward to the new I2S - thanks!
On 3/14/24 11:22 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:

More details are updated in ChromeStatus, including interoperability and 
compatibility risks, Safari/Firefox views, web platform tests. It compares 
the behaviors across different browser vendors. 
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568 

Will send the updated "intent to ship" to this thread later if it looks 
good.

AFAIK, I don't see potential privacy/security issues, so can i set 
"security review status" and "privacy review status" to "not applicable"? 
Please let us know if you have any concerns.

On Wednesday, Mar

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-14 Thread Zheda Chen 
Yes the intent started as an origin trial, now more details and bullets are 
added in ChromeStatus and I'm about to send "intent to ship".

As for your question about "alignment interval", the alignment interval for 
Chromium would be 32ms. The specification mentions "the 
SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not guarantee that timers will run exactly 
on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, other tasks, etc, are to be expected. 
The wait length of time is implementation-defined, which is intended to 
allow user agents to pad timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage of 
the device".
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html

Actually, different browser vendors do have different implementation about 
the wait length of time. Webkit would align DOM timer of non-interacted 
cross origin frames to 30ms, while in Gecko, all DOM timers of frames (both 
same origin and cross origin) are aligned to 16ms. So web developers cannot 
expect the delay is the same across user agents. I already put this note to 
"interoperability and compatibility risks" of the feature in ChromeStatus.

If the work is related to animation, then requestAnimationFrame is much 
better at scheduling animation work than JavaScript timers. It synchronizes 
with the refresh rate of the device, ensuring you only get one callback per 
displayable frame, and you get the maximum amount of time to construct that 
frame. requestAnimationFrame would not be affected.
https://developer.chrome.com/blog/timer-throttling-in-chrome-88#animation

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 12:32:52 AM UTC+8 Daniel Bratell wrote:

This intent has ended up in a strange state in the chromestatus tool, 
missing various flags I would have expected. Is that because the intent 
predates some of the chromestatus updates or because it started as an 
origin trial? If so, maybe the simplest is to refile it, or can it be made 
to be a proper Intent to Ship with all the buttons and bullets?

Another few things though, and I hope I'm not repeating something already 
covered elsewhere.

First, I really like the idea of doing optimizations that have a measurable 
impact on user behaviour and probably also power usage and energy usage so 
I approve of this work. But then I have questions.

The text mentions that WebKit uses an alignment on 30 milliseconds 
intervals, but what is the intention for Chromium? Also 30 milliseconds? 

If the idea is for it to be 30 milliseconds, that would be too sparse to 
allow 60 fps animations run on setTimeout. If so, is that intentional, and 
would that be acceptable?

I ask in particular, because "uninteresting iframe" is vaguely defined so I 
don't know how much content will be misclassified as "uninteresting".

In general, is the answer to my questions above covered by some 
specification we can point people to when they wonder why something behaves 
inexplicably?

/Daniel

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/d8c084b4-e00f-4784-93b8-d0fbb153d978n%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-14 Thread Zheda Chen 
More details are updated in ChromeStatus, including interoperability and 
compatibility risks, Safari/Firefox views, web platform tests. It compares 
the behaviors across different browser vendors. 
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

Will send the updated "intent to ship" to this thread later if it looks 
good.

AFAIK, I don't see potential privacy/security issues, so can i set 
"security review status" and "privacy review status" to "not applicable"? 
Please let us know if you have any concerns.

On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 10:00:35 AM UTC+8 dom...@chromium.org wrote:

Can you fill out the interoperability and compatibility risks section here? 
I don't think standards position requests are necessary, but saying how 
this behavior might break existing sites that assume Chromium's current 
behavior, and how this new behavior compares to WebKit and Gecko, would be 
helpful.

Also, can you request the privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability/testing 
gates on Chrome Status?

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:12 PM Zheda Chen  wrote:

Okay I update the process stage in Chrome Platform Status, and paste the 
newly-generated Intent above. Please take a look.

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b1ed1e28-bc0b-4be4-b328-de4a872806ecn%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-12 Thread Zheda Chen 
Okay I update the process stage in Chrome Platform Status, and paste the 
newly-generated Intent above. Please take a look.

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 8:57:59 PM UTC+8 Zheda Chen wrote:

> *Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant 
> cross-origin frames*
>
> Contact emails
> zheda...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
>
> Specification
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
>
> Summary
>
> Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
> Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
> performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
> unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
> policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
> This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
> on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
> visible but have non-large proportion of page’s visible area, and have no 
> user interaction. [1] 
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092
>
>
> Blink component
> Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>
>
> TAG review
> None
>
> TAG review status
> Not applicable
>
> Risks
>
> Interoperability and Compatibility
>
> None
>
> *Gecko*: No signal
>
> *WebKit*: No signal
>
> *Web developers*: No signals
>
> *Other signals*:
>
> WebView application risks
>
> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
>
> None
>
> Debuggability
>
> None
>
>
> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
> Yes
>
> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
> ?
> No
>
> Flag name on chrome://flags
> None
>
> Finch feature name
> ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers
>
> Requires code in //chrome?
> False
>
> Tracking bug
> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028
>
> Estimated milestones
>
> Shipping on desktop
> 123
> DevTrial on desktop
> 121
> Shipping on Android
> 123
> DevTrial on Android
> 121
>
> Anticipated spec changes
>
> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or 
> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues 
> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may 
> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of 
> the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
> None
>
>
> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
>
> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
> <https://chromestatus.com/>.
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:15:41 PM UTC+8 dom...@chromium.org wrote:
>
>> Switching to an Intent to Ship sounds good. Can you update the process 
>> stage in the ChromeStatus tool, fill out any necessary fields that differ 
>> between the stages, and either start a new thread, or paste the 
>> newly-generated Intent here?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 2:48 AM Etienne Pierre-doray  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm working with Zheda and Francois to get this feature out, chiming in
>>>
>>> In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you 
>>>> want to go to 50% stable.
>>>>
>>> I agree, I'd consider this feature ready to ship, we have enough 
>>> confidence from previous stable experiments to roll it out.
>>> The main reason for doing a 50/50 experiment first is to more accurately 
>>> measure impact on CWV. 
>>> There aren't clear guidelines from finch otherwise on the exact % when 
>>> ramping up from 1% to 100%, or when intermediate steps are needed at all; 
>>> our team has been following a 1/50/100 pattern (we received feedback for 
>>> other features that fewer intermediate steps was desirable for web devs). 
>>> For blink purpose, I'd suggest we switch this to an 'Intent to ship'.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 5:06 PM Domenic Denicola  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-03-12 Thread Zheda Chen 
*Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant 
cross-origin frames*

Contact emails
zheda.c...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org

Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html

Summary

Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
visible but have non-large proportion of page’s visible area, and have no 
user interaction. [1] 
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092


Blink component
Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>

TAG review
None

TAG review status
Not applicable

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

None

*Gecko*: No signal

*WebKit*: No signal

*Web developers*: No signals

*Other signals*:

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

None

Debuggability

None


Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
<https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
?
No

Flag name on chrome://flags
None

Finch feature name
ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers

Requires code in //chrome?
False

Tracking bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028

Estimated milestones
Shipping on desktop
123
DevTrial on desktop
121
Shipping on Android
123
DevTrial on Android
121

Anticipated spec changes

Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or 
interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues 
in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may 
introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of 
the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
None

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
<https://chromestatus.com/>.

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:15:41 PM UTC+8 dom...@chromium.org wrote:

> Switching to an Intent to Ship sounds good. Can you update the process 
> stage in the ChromeStatus tool, fill out any necessary fields that differ 
> between the stages, and either start a new thread, or paste the 
> newly-generated Intent here?
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 2:48 AM Etienne Pierre-doray  
> wrote:
>
>> I'm working with Zheda and Francois to get this feature out, chiming in
>>
>> In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you want 
>>> to go to 50% stable.
>>>
>> I agree, I'd consider this feature ready to ship, we have enough 
>> confidence from previous stable experiments to roll it out.
>> The main reason for doing a 50/50 experiment first is to more accurately 
>> measure impact on CWV. 
>> There aren't clear guidelines from finch otherwise on the exact % when 
>> ramping up from 1% to 100%, or when intermediate steps are needed at all; 
>> our team has been following a 1/50/100 pattern (we received feedback for 
>> other features that fewer intermediate steps was desirable for web devs). 
>> For blink purpose, I'd suggest we switch this to an 'Intent to ship'.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 5:06 PM Domenic Denicola  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you 
>>> want to go to 50% stable. To me it sounds like that might be reasonable 
>>> here? I.e. you're fairly confident that the feature is a good idea to ship, 
>>> but you want to do a more cautious rollout. I think many Intent to Ships go 
>>> through this sort of cautious rollout; they just don't necessarily discuss 
>>> the details of it on blink-dev.
>>>
>>> 2024年3月5日(火) 5:19 Mike Taylor :
>>>
>>>> My concern is going from 1% to 50% on stable - if something does go 
>>>> wrong, that's a _lot_ of folks who will experience it. Are you open to 
>>>> something smaller like 5%? If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>> thx
>>>> On 2/29/24 12:34 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The volume of d

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-02-28 Thread Zheda Chen 
The volume of data on Beta is too low to draw any conclusion. Although the 
experiment on 1% stable shows some promising result, the data are not 
enough and we'd like to gather more data via experiment on higher 
percentage of stable. 
After that, based on large volume of data, we can draw the conclusion and 
decide next step (whether to ship the feature). 

I contribute the idea and CL source code of this feature, Francois 
(fdoray@) is the main reviewer and the trial is planned by him. Let us know 
if you have any concerns and we can discuss with fdoray@ together.

"Unimportant" frames means they are cross-origin, visible but use non-large 
proportion (<75%) of page's visible area and have not received a user 
gesture. All 3 conditions should be met.

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:26:22 AM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org 
wrote:

> Could you say more why you would like to experiment on 50% of stable, vs 
> requesting permission to ship? That's quite a leap from 1% - and it seems 
> you already have results demonstrating performance improvements. 
>
> Also, mind answering the question of specifying "unimportant frames"?
> On 2/27/24 5:54 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
>
> fdoray@ launched this trial since Nov 2023, at first canary/dev, and then 
> beta, 1% stable. The experiments show statistically improvements to CPU 
> time on navigation, page load time and input delay. 
> So we are requesting to experiment on 50% stable as next step.
>
> Actually the feature should be in origin trial stage now. But I don't have 
> the permission to add origin trial stage. I have to use dev trial instead. 
> Need some help from webstatus-request@ to grant me the permission.
>
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 8:53:34 AM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> To clarify: is this intended to be an I2E, or a Developer Trial? 
>> According to https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568, it 
>> appears you are in the dev trial stage. But you mention stable experiment 
>> below... so perhaps that's a process mistake?
>>
>> Can you give more info on the experiment timelines and what stable 
>> percentages you are requesting permission to experiment on?
>>
>> On 2/22/24 2:30 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
>>
>> Contact emails 
>> zheda...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
>>
>> Specification
>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
>>
>> Summary 
>>
>> Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
>> Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
>> performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
>> unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
>> policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
>> This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
>> on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
>> visible but have small proportion of page’s visible area, and have no user 
>> interaction. [1] 
>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092
>>
>> Do you have plans to specify this concept of "unimportant frames" 
>> somewhere?
>>
>>
>>
>> Blink component
>> Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>
>>
>> TAG review
>> None
>>
>> TAG review status
>>
>> Not applicable
>>
>> Risks 
>>
>>
>> Interoperability and Compatibility 
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> *Gecko*: No signal
>>
>> *WebKit*: No signal
>>
>> *Web developers*: No signals
>>
>> *Other signals*:
>>
>> WebView application risks 
>>
>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
>> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> Goals for experimentationWe plan to experiment on stable to confirm 
>> whether we observe same performance improvement as on lower channels and 
>> similar power benefit as in the lab. We will decide whether this feature 
>> ships based on the experiment data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ongoing technical constraints 
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> Debuggability 
>>
>> None
>>
>>
>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
>> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
>>
>> Yes
>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-02-27 Thread Zheda Chen 
fdoray@ launched this trial since Nov 2023, at first canary/dev, and then 
beta, 1% stable. The experiments show statistically improvements to CPU 
time on navigation, page load time and input delay. 
So we are requesting to experiment on 50% stable as next step.

Actually the feature should be in origin trial stage now. But I don't have 
the permission to add origin trial stage. I have to use dev trial instead. 
Need some help from webstatus-request@ to grant me the permission.

On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 8:53:34 AM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> To clarify: is this intended to be an I2E, or a Developer Trial? According 
> to https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568, it appears you are 
> in the dev trial stage. But you mention stable experiment below... so 
> perhaps that's a process mistake?
>
> Can you give more info on the experiment timelines and what stable 
> percentages you are requesting permission to experiment on?
>
> On 2/22/24 2:30 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
>
> Contact emails 
> zheda...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
>
> Specification
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
>
> Summary 
>
> Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
> Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
> performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
> unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
> policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
> This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
> on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
> visible but have small proportion of page’s visible area, and have no user 
> interaction. [1] 
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092
>
> Do you have plans to specify this concept of "unimportant frames" 
> somewhere?
>
>
>
> Blink component
> Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 
> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>
>
> TAG review
> None
>
> TAG review status
>
> Not applicable
>
> Risks 
>
>
> Interoperability and Compatibility 
>
> None
>
>
> *Gecko*: No signal
>
> *WebKit*: No signal
>
> *Web developers*: No signals
>
> *Other signals*:
>
> WebView application risks 
>
> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
>
> None
>
>
> Goals for experimentationWe plan to experiment on stable to confirm 
> whether we observe same performance improvement as on lower channels and 
> similar power benefit as in the lab. We will decide whether this feature 
> ships based on the experiment data.
>
>
>
> Ongoing technical constraints 
>
> None
>
>
> Debuggability 
>
> None
>
>
> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
>
> Yes
>
> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
> ?
> No
>
> Flag name on chrome://flags
> None
>
> Finch feature name
> ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers
>
> Requires code in //chrome?
> False
>
> Tracking bug
> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028
>
> Estimated milestones
> DevTrial on desktop
> 122
> DevTrial on Android
> 122
>
> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
>
> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
> <https://chromestatus.com/>.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "blink-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/38855cfe-3bf3-4a04-b96a-81adaa5ba72fn%40chromium.org
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/38855cfe-3bf3-4a04-b96a-81adaa5ba72fn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f7793487-9d55-458e-a06a-9860c3403826n%40chromium.org.

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

2024-02-22 Thread Zheda Chen 
Contact emails
zheda.c...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org

Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html

Summary

Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant cross-origin frames. 
Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to 
performance concerns. This is very conservative and actually some 
unimportant frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses the 
policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin frames to 30ms. 
This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant frames 
on foreground pages. Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, 
visible but have small proportion of page’s visible area, and have no user 
interaction. [1] 
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092


Blink component
Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers 


TAG review
None

TAG review status
Not applicable

Risks


Interoperability and Compatibility

None


*Gecko*: No signal

*WebKit*: No signal

*Web developers*: No signals

*Other signals*:

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

None


Goals for experimentation

We plan to experiment on stable to confirm whether we observe same 
performance improvement as on lower channels and similar power benefit as 
in the lab. We will decide whether this feature ships based on the 
experiment data.

Ongoing technical constraints

None


Debuggability

None


Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 

?
No

Flag name on chrome://flags
None

Finch feature name
ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers

Requires code in //chrome?
False

Tracking bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028

Estimated milestones
DevTrial on desktop
122
DevTrial on Android
122

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/38855cfe-3bf3-4a04-b96a-81adaa5ba72fn%40chromium.org.