Hey Jiahe, Can you summarize what you've learned from the 1% experiment? The design doc isn't exactly clear on what y'all would consider "success" from an experimental perspective, so I'd like to understand what you're evaluating.
I'm also curious about the hop from 1% to 50%. What do you expect to learn from the 50:50 experiment that you're not learning from the 1%? We often do incremental rollouts, ramping from 1% to 5% to 10% and so on, but I think you could do that as part of an Intent to Ship, rather than extending this experiment. -mike On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 11:57 AM Jiahe Zhang <jiahe.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > We've been experimenting this on 1% Stable on M107 for weeks , and the > results are quite encouraging. > So I'd like to request a larger scope of experiments to 50% Stable. Please > review. > > Best Regards, > Jiahe > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 4:45:42 AM UTC+8 François Doray wrote: > >> Update: We ended up experimenting with M106+, because there was a bug in >> the code in prior versions. The M106 Beta experiment has good results. >> We'll start the 1% Stable experiment this week. >> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:47 AM François Doray <fdo...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks! I started the 1% Stable experiment. I will share an overview of >>> the results in ~3 weeks. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:21 AM Mike West <mk...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO, this is somewhere on the border between a web-visible experiment >>>> and a pure expression of user agent preference regarding flexibility >>>> explicitly carved out in a standard. >>>> >>>> Rather than debating the feature's philosophical state, I'd simply >>>> treat this email as an Intent to Experiment from M104 (current stable) to >>>> M107, and give you an explicit LGTM. >>>> >>>> Additionally: it would be ideal for the experience you gather in this >>>> experiment to fold back into the spec as an "Implementation Consideration" >>>> that might help other implementers determine how to use the flexibility the >>>> spec provides. >>>> >>>> -mike >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 9:24 PM 'François Doray' via blink-dev < >>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +Scott Haseley as an expert in this field. >>>>> >>>>> We would like to start experimenting with this intervention on 1% >>>>> Stable very soon. We've been experimenting on 50% of Beta for almost 2 >>>>> months. The results are encouraging and we aren't aware of negative Web >>>>> developer feedback. Do we need your LGTM to proceed? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:45 AM Zhang, Jiahe <jiahe...@intel.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>> >>>>>> jiahe...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Specification >>>>>> >>>>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Design docs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFyfKUUxqM7uKxKOGhLiOjyY6T7QRduVcuHN0f6vJkk/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary >>>>>> >>>>>> Enter Intensive Wake Up throttling after 10 seconds if the page is >>>>>> fully loaded when it becomes hidden. Currently, wake ups from JS timers >>>>>> with a nesting level >= 5 are throttled to 1 per minute after the page >>>>>> has >>>>>> spent 5 minutes in the background [1], which is very conservative and was >>>>>> chosen to allow a launch of Intensive Wake Up Throttling with minimal >>>>>> regression risk. We're now planning to reduce this timeout to 10 seconds >>>>>> if >>>>>> the page is fully loaded when hidden. [1] >>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/4718288976216064 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink component >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink>Scheduling >>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EScheduling> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TAG review >>>>>> >>>>>> Not applicable. This feature changes the behavior of an existing API, >>>>>> while remaining spec-compliant ("Optionally, wait a further >>>>>> implementation-defined length of time. >>>>>> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html#run-steps-after-a-timeout> >>>>>> ") >>>>>> >>>>>> Risks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>>>> >>>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>>> >>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>>> >>>>>> *Other signals*: The more conservative version of Intensive Wake Up >>>>>> Throttling shipped smoothly to 100% Stable more than 1 year ago. A few >>>>>> bugs >>>>>> were filed, but in all cases we've been able to propose workarounds which >>>>>> made apps more efficient (example >>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1186569#c16>). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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?* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, this feature will only ship on desktop platforms. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Goals for experimentation >>>>>> >>>>>> We plan to experiment on 1% Stable to confirm whether we observe the >>>>>> same memory and power improvements as in the lab and on lower channels. >>>>>> We >>>>>> will decide whether this intervention ships based on the experiment data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ongoing technical constraints >>>>>> >>>>>> None >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a new Web Platform feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>> >>>>>> No >>>>>> >>>>>> This feature will only ship on desktop platforms. On Android, the >>>>>> system severely limits resource consumption from background renderers, >>>>>> which makes this feature unnecessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Flag name >>>>>> >>>>>> quick-intensive-throttling-after-loading >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>> >>>>>> False >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>> >>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1324656 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>> >>>>>> DevTrial on desktop >>>>>> >>>>>> 105 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5580139453743104 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/CAGD3t5E9r%2BjOcMa5nR3ZgYjNykEyj8bUBmjvszgFYmiBJKP-dA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGD3t5E9r%2BjOcMa5nR3ZgYjNykEyj8bUBmjvszgFYmiBJKP-dA%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAKXHy%3Dfnj-k%3DD2oeOUAKdoDSXZypeHaE4%2BQ1d%2Bw6R30jqJVzMg%40mail.gmail.com.
