On 21.05.2014 01:27, Rik Cabanier wrote:
Likewise here. I don't think anyone is saying that hardwareConcurrency
is failing on the grounds of exposing too much system information alone.
The way I read this thread, people either aren't convinced that it's the
right compromise given its usefulness,
I think it might help your case to acknowledge the often significant
difference between technically possible, but expensive and
unreliable and extremely simple and 100% reliable. That something
is already technically possible does not mean that making it easier
has no consequences. Arguing that
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
Primary eng emails
caban...@adobe.com, bugm...@eligrey.com
*Proposal*
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/NavigatorCores
*Summary*
Expose a property on navigator called hardwareConcurrency that returns the
number of logical
+1000! Thanks for articulating so clearly the difference between the
Web-as-an-application-platform and other application platforms.
Benoit
2014-05-19 21:35 GMT-04:00 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why the web platform is special here and we should trust that
authors can do the right thing.
I'm fairly sure people have already
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.comwrote:
+1000! Thanks for articulating so clearly the difference between the
Web-as-an-application-platform and other application platforms.
It really surprises me that you would make this objection.
WebGL certainly would
FYI this attribute landed in WebKit today:
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/169017
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
ehsan.akhg...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
...
IMO, though we may have a better model in the future, it is at least not
harmful to have such attribute with some limitation. The WebKit guys think
it is not a fingerprinting when limiting the max value to 8. I think it
might be meaningful to also limit the number to power of 2 (very few people
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, though we may have a better model in the future, it is at least not
harmful to have such attribute with some limitation. The WebKit guys think
it is not a fingerprinting when limiting the max value to 8. I think it
Do you think it would be feasible that the browser fires events every time the
number of cores available for a job changes? That might allow to build an
efficient event-based worker pool.
In the meantime, there are developers out there who are downloading
micro-benchmarks on every client to
Here's the naive worker pool implementation I was thinking about. It requires
that the browser fires an event everytime a core becomes available (only in an
active tab of course), and provide a property that tells whether or not a core
is available at a given time:
// a handler that runs when
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:03 AM, lrb...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it would be feasible that the browser fires events every time
the number of cores available for a job changes? That might allow to build
an efficient event-based worker pool.
I think this will be very noisy and might
Do you think it would be feasible that the browser fires events every time
the number of cores available for a job changes? That might allow to build
an efficient event-based worker pool.
I think this will be very noisy and might cause a lot of confusion.
Also I'm unsure how we could
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
...
The problem is that the API doesn't really make it obvious that
you're not supposed to take the value that the getter returns and
just spawn N workers.
On May 15, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
ehsan.akhg...@gmail.comwrote:
...
Make it possible for authors to make a semi-informed decision on how to
divide the work among workers.
That can already be done
On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
...
That is not the point of this attribute. It's just a hint for
the author
so he can tune his
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5/12/2014 7:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
*Concerns*
I recently saw this bug about implementing navigator.getFeature, wouldn't
it make sense for this to be like hardware.memory, but hardware.cores?
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
On 2014-05-13, 9:55 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
I recently saw this bug about implementing navigator.getFeature,
wouldn't it make sense for this to be like hardware.memory, but
hardware.cores?
No, because that would have all of the same issues as the current API.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2014-05-13, 10:54 AM, Eli Grey wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
supporting a worker pool that actually scales to how many cores you have
available
1) What is an available core to you? An available core to me is a
core that I can use to
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
supporting a worker pool that actually scales to how many cores you have
available
1) What is an available core to you? An available core to me is a
core that I can use to compute. A core under load (even 100% load)
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, you're wrong. An available core is a core which your application can
use to run computations on. If another code is already keeping it busy
with a higher priority, it's unavailable by definition.
Run this
Just wish to throw in my 2c...
Many game engines will query the core count to determine if they should
follow a simple (one main thread, one render thread, one audio thread,
one streamer thread) or more parallel (multiple render threads, multiple
audio threads, gameplay/physics/ai broken up
On 2014-05-13, 11:14 AM, Eli Grey wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong. An available core is a core which your
application can use to run computations on. If another code is
already
As the main usage of this number is to maintain a fixed thread pool, I feel
it might be better to have a higher level API, such as worker pool.
I do agree that thread pool is very useful, but exposing the number of
cores directly seems not to be the best solution. We could have a better
25 matches
Mail list logo
