Hi all, The CL <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3115849> has been relanded and following's the new original plan:
- Land the change to M95 - Done - Allow the change to reach M95 beta (promoted Sep 23) - Revert it on the M95 branch well before the stable cut/release (Cut Oct 12) - Get back to this thread with test reports on M95 beta Does that sound good to you? Looks like Philip is still on vacation, could someone help notice the release managers about this plan? Or just help me reach out the release managers. Many thanks! Thanks, Wanming On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:13:06 AM UTC+8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:28 PM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi Chris, Daniel and all, >> >> The blocker issue >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717 has been >> fixed now, and per above performance improvement @verwaest reported, can we >> start testing on Beta again? >> > > Sure, go ahead and experiment on canary/dev/beta, and then come back to us > with any new findings. > > >> >> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 1:59:25 AM UTC+8 08629...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Re:[blink-dev] Ineng to Ship:Remove clamping of set Up >>> >>> BGODL209B013 >>> >>> ในวันที่ ศ. 11 มิ.ย. 2021 09:13 Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>> เขียนว่า: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> @verwaest reported at the revert CL >>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2881077/2#message-2daf43353180fd00eff1ff8aa660f459c3189750>that >>>> >>>> this change would improve Speedometer2 by 5-6% on the Apple M1 and ~3% on >>>> our win10 perf bots. Thanks @verwaest! >>>> >>>> This is really a good improvement and a new impetus for us to push this >>>> optimization forward. One block at present is the navigation scheduling >>>> issue we reported: >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717, which >>>> has been open for a while and no new updates. Could someone help to push >>>> it? Thanks! >>>> >>>> Moreover, is there other workaround solution to push the optimization >>>> forward? >>>> On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 3:17:48 PM UTC+8 Wanming Lin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Chris and Daniel, sorry I didn't explain clearly for the user >>>>> reported issue, which is actually a chrome bug, even with 1ms clamp, this >>>>> issue may still happen in some other scenarios, I've created a separated >>>>> bug and explained the story at >>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717. PTAL, >>>>> thanks! >>>>> I think it's worth an another intent once this bug be solved. As it >>>>> turns out, 1ms' clamp covers up some real chrome bugs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 3:44:33 AM UTC+8 Daniel Bratell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As Chris said, it's good that you managed to identify some >>>>>> problematic areas during the beta phase. Of course it would have been >>>>>> more >>>>>> pleasant with no problems at all, but this was always a risky change. >>>>>> Hopefully you can use these bug reports to figure out a version of this >>>>>> change that doesn't cause those problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a process point of view we will consider this intent "on hold" >>>>>> until you think it is ready to try again. At such a time, just return to >>>>>> this thread (or file a new intent if you think that would be cleaner). >>>>>> >>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>> On 2021-05-13 19:55, Chris Harrelson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for these data points. Are these the only bugs that were filed? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd say these bugs are exactly the kind of interop problems we should >>>>>> be worried about with this intent. Yes it's true that those sites >>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>> depend on these relative timings, and it's technically a site bug if so, >>>>>> but if it is widespread enough it still represents a big enough problem >>>>>> that it would block shipping this change in behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:24 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Philip! We actually received some regression bugs during >>>>>>> initial trial, including several pinpoint performance regressions and >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> user reported scheduling issue. But we finally identify they are all >>>>>>> caused >>>>>>> by other issues after investigation. Following's the bug summary: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Pinpoint regressions: >>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1179810 >>>>>>> We identified the problem is with the perf story itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. en.wikipedia.org : User reports page is scrolled to the top >>>>>>> after closing overlay: >>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1205285 >>>>>>> This should be an navigation scheduling issue. >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 3:40:33 PM UTC+8 Philip Jägenstedt >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This change has now been on beta for a time, and the revert on M91 >>>>>>>> is in progress. Can you summarize what you learned from bug reports >>>>>>>> coming >>>>>>>> in? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:00 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the release >>>>>>>>> managers about this plan. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, that sounds good! Thank you for your support! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:03:04 PM UTC+8 Philip Jägenstedt >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the original timeline here won't work since your CL was >>>>>>>>>> reverted and relanded so many times, and I think I also made a >>>>>>>>>> mistake with >>>>>>>>>> the branching, since a change landed *after* the M90 branch >>>>>>>>>> point would never be in the M90 beta... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To bake in the the M91 beta, what we need to do is: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Land the change soon before the M91 branch point, which the >>>>>>>>>> latest >>>>>>>>>> reland >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/cd7dfaad25b9c93c440030fea8e441cf7bc39a5a> >>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> - Allow the change to reach M91 beta (promoted Apr 22) >>>>>>>>>> - Revert it on the M91 branch well before the stable >>>>>>>>>> cut/release, let's say May 4 at the latest >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly how much exposure on the beta channel that will give >>>>>>>>>> depends on beta release dates, but it ought to be at least a week. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the release >>>>>>>>>> managers about this plan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:27 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All, the CL has been landed at >>>>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2730350, >>>>>>>>>>> sorry for a bit delay due to another reverting during the period. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Philip, could you help to email the release engineers about >>>>>>>>>>> this change? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 6:14:15 AM UTC+8 Philip >>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good idea, Ian, I'll go ahead and do that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:48 PM Ian Kilpatrick < >>>>>>>>>>>> ikilp...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip - if you could also email the release engineers >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly about this change - that likely would be pertinent (just >>>>>>>>>>>>> so this >>>>>>>>>>>>> is on their radar in case things go wrong, and if a revert in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beta is >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:28 AM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>>>>>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Wanming, I'll review on the CL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check back in this thread on the week of March 22, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there will be enough time to discuss before the branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:07 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip, thanks for your comments! I've submitted the reland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CL at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2636507/, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please take a look. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 12:01:24 AM UTC+8 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most straightforward way to test this on beta (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> canary before that) would be to land the code right after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M90 branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point (Feb 25) and then revert it some time well ahead of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point (Apr 8). The beta promotion should be around Mar 11, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to get at least a few weeks on beta with this method. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, even if the beta baking does not reveal any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, breakage due to this can be hard to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code (libraries) that aren't easy to update. It would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prudent to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this a finch-controlled experiment, to avoid a potential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urgent revert in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM3 to trying this on beta with whichever method you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer at the moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:34 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Chris, very glad to see this great progress! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You have my LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release, and as we get evidence back from that, we'd ask you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to report it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. On the basis of that update, we'll then potentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approve a stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I'm new to intent-to-ship process, could you please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guide me or provide BKMs on how to flag this on for Beta for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one release, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what kinds of testing should be covered? Any chromium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help test and evaluate the impact? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I am thinking of leveraging chrome://histograms/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to count the use of setTimeout(..., 0) from some hot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites, then we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do some basic testing to check if there's obvious regression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 4:16:37 AM UTC+8 Chris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM2 for testing on beta and coming back to the API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners with the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Alex Russell < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sligh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification, Geoffery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming: we discussed this again at today's API OWNERS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting and, given what Mike and Ben noted here, we'd like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see this bake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a while on Beta to shake out any potential compat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. You have my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for one release, and as we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get evidence back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that, we'd ask you to report it here. On the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that update, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll then potentially approve a stable launch. Does that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound good to you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you have any more data as to why this change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improves things for users and developers, that would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be helpful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 12:01:42 PM UTC-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoffrey garen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/17156/webkit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the change that added the minimum timeout clamp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r17156 *reduced* a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing 10ms clamp to 1ms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wande...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note that if you nest setTimeout(..., 0) enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5 times?) then you start getting 4ms clamping anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the first 4 or so setTimeout(..., 0) calls in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. I don't think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this intent is removing the 4ms clamping for nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeouts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:20 AM Ben Kelly < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wande...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its possible folks are using setTimeout(.., 0) as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setImmediate() replacement which would result in high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers. But that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use case would not be adversely impacted by removing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this clamping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:01 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yo...@yoav.ws> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:54 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your comments! I've created a WebKit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221124 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main motivation of this intent-to-ship is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correct the scheduling and reduce potential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance impact. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't find impact on live sites with/without 1ms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clamp maybe they‘ve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already avoided the usage of setTimeout(..., 0) since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible risk is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have numbers on how often `setTimout(... ,0)` >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is used? (use counters, HTTPArchive, cluster telemetry, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > What about setInterval? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since remove 1ms clamp exits risk, we'd like to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change setTimeout at first and base on discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result to see if it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable, if yes, we can apply it at setInterval as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 6:14:07 AM UTC+8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Taylor wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howdy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, I think if Firefox has been able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship this behavior it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely web-compatible (modulo different code paths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being served behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UA sniffing). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been subtle race-y JS timing bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between sites in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Chrome that my old team (at Mozilla) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately I don't have any links to back that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. So there is some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk that sites are (unintentionally) relying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, aligning with Firefox (and the HTML >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard) on this seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good -- more so if WebKit is willing to do so as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about setInterval? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will setTimeout and setInterval be consistent wrt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clamping after this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed change? (see also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1646799#c0) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/21 2:28 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +mike taylor who may have insight into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential compat risks, given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the different behavior between Gecko and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit/Blink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 4:53:47 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-8 Manuel Rego wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 27/01/2021 03:01, Lin, Wanming wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Safari: 1ms clamp (WebKit's clamp at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384>>) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Have we checked with WebKit if they have any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans to change this or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > at some point? Is there a WebKit bug report or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Maybe you can ask for signals in webkit-dev, see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://bit.ly/blink-signals < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/blink-signals> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Bye, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Rego >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c1d6691-1ccd-4451-a491-56990ecc695fn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c1d6691-1ccd-4451-a491-56990ecc695fn%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACj%3DBEhAvLduQ6XXA-Vm-8%3DTM9L-d5q1_h-DrvrKLHg8NBvxEQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACj%3DBEhAvLduQ6XXA-Vm-8%3DTM9L-d5q1_h-DrvrKLHg8NBvxEQ%40mail.gmail.com?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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/095fc193-27e5-4a7c-b816-edbab7eb176cn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/095fc193-27e5-4a7c-b816-edbab7eb176cn%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfU0La%3D3Fpd%3DHBVQ2phHuvMSozpOsXqt-NR-mtWepRJPQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfU0La%3D3Fpd%3DHBVQ2phHuvMSozpOsXqt-NR-mtWepRJPQ%40mail.gmail.com?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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2869319d-e852-4f3b-8471-611f6ae7c9b4n%40chromium.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2869319d-e852-4f3b-8471-611f6ae7c9b4n%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8JUEZDbfNsmXJWhcz_N7zcRwzoips2r_DzMEqhctwr1g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8JUEZDbfNsmXJWhcz_N7zcRwzoips2r_DzMEqhctwr1g%40mail.gmail.com?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+...@chromium.org. >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b155d685-4b7e-498b-8e8a-1e9c95d4195an%40chromium.org >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b155d685-4b7e-498b-8e8a-1e9c95d4195an%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+...@chromium.org. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f2f1d2cf-0b9b-4ed4-ac0e-4f7d9a20e4c1n%40chromium.org >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f2f1d2cf-0b9b-4ed4-ac0e-4f7d9a20e4c1n%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/cb9aacdf-dc28-42b0-90cd-6c0faec080ffn%40chromium.org.
