With desktop e10s on there can be a noticeable delay after switching
tabs where there is a throbber displayed before the page content.
Is the duration of this delay measured in telemetry anywhere, and do we
have criteria for how much delay is acceptable in this case? If e10s
were off, do we
e10s team will probably answer these questions better than I can...
Is the duration of this delay measured in telemetry anywhere,
I don't think any existing Telemetry probes measure this effect. We have
the FX_TAB_* histograms but I doubt they reflect the duration of the
tab-switch throbber
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.us
wrote:
With desktop e10s on there can be a noticeable delay after switching tabs
where there is a throbber displayed before the page content.
When the user switches tabs, we allow the content process 300ms to send
layer
On 2015-04-07 8:48 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Is the duration of this delay measured in telemetry anywhere, and do
we have criteria for how much delay is acceptable in this case? If
e10s were off, do we expect that this same delay would occur but would
just show up as a jank switching tabs?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Bill McCloskey wmcclos...@mozilla.com
wrote:
I think we probably want to use a longer delay than 300ms before we show
the spinner. We'd also like to look into why it takes so long to re-create
the layer tree when we switch to a tab. Sometimes it's caused by a
I think we probably want to use a longer delay than 300ms before we show
the spinner. We'd also like to look into why it takes so long to
re-create
the layer tree when we switch to a tab. Sometimes it's caused by a janky
content process, but there may be some layout/gfx improvements we
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:06 AM, George Wright geo...@mozilla.com wrote:
We've discussed adding telemetry probes to measure page painting time so
we can properly gauge what the impact is of e10s vs non-e10s. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1135719 for the bug tracking
page
We don't have telemetry yet. I've done some measurements and haven't found
any cases where tab switching consistently takes longer in e10s. However,
it's certainly possible that it does on average. Either way, it's hard to
investigate until we can reproduce the problem.
I see the spinner far
OK, to reopen this discussion ...
I suggested in Bug 1151371 to activate the status IN_PROGRESS in bmo and use
this status for bugs that are in progress (patch in work) and that
everybody use the status applied in future only as taken or as in the
to-dos-list like the others do.
My arguments
Counter-intuitively, having multiple content processes may use less memory than
taking screenshots per tab. Especially if we use the same COW forking FFOS uses
the overhead of a content processes should be very small, certainly less than a
high resolution screenshot kept around. Not sure do
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Bill McCloskey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.us
wrote:
With desktop e10s on there can be a noticeable delay after switching tabs
where there is a throbber displayed before the page content.
When the user
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
We don't have telemetry yet. I've done some measurements and haven't
found
any cases where tab switching consistently takes longer in e10s. However,
it's certainly possible that it does on average. Either way, it's
On 04/07/2015 01:15 PM, Tobias B. Besemer wrote:
OK, to reopen this discussion ...
I suggested in Bug 1151371 to activate the status IN_PROGRESS in bmo and
use this status for bugs that are in progress (patch in work) and that
everybody use the status applied in future only as taken or as
Daniel,
Le 8 avr. 2015 à 06:19, Daniel Holbert dholb...@mozilla.com a écrit :
People already have inconsistent interpretations of what the bug
status field ASSIGNED vs NEW means (and inconsistent
levels-of-bothering-to-actually-tweak-the-flag).
(Sorry if it had already been discussed in the
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:00 AM, andreas@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure do what degree we can replicate on Windows what we do on FFOS to
launch content processes.
The Cygwin people have looked into fork() in Windows a bit. Some links:
On 04/07/2015 06:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:00 AM, andreas@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure do what degree we can replicate on Windows what we do on
FFOS to launch content processes.
The Cygwin people have looked into fork() in Windows a bit. Some
links:
16 matches
Mail list logo
