Closed
Bug 735894
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Fire the image discard timeout more often
Categories
(Core :: ImageLib, defect)
Core
ImageLib
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla14
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox14 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: justin.lebar+bug, Assigned: justin.lebar+bug)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
1.22 KB,
patch
|
joe
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The main motivation for this is areweslimyet.com. (We're still working out a few bugs before we un-protect it, but I'm happy to give out the password privately.) AWSY waits for 30s before taking some measurements. But images are currently discarded 20-40s after they're unlocked. (This is true even with the rewrite of discarding in bug 732820.) It's kind of lame to make a change primarily for a benchmark, but I don't see much possible harm in firing the discard timer once every 10s instead of once every 20s. We'd leave 20s as the discard timeout; we'd just check for timed-out images twice as frequently, so images would be discarded 20-30s after they're unlocked.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #606000 -
Flags: review?(joe)
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → justin.lebar+bug
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
This isn't free, of course: we'll use more battery.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Joe Drew (:JOEDREW!) from comment #2) > This isn't free, of course: we'll use more battery. I imagine that 1000 extra events use less energy than decoding one large JPEG image -- that is to say, we'd have to fire a lot of extra events before this matters. But perhaps we can think of a pathological case where we'd fire a lot of extra events, or perhaps an event is more expensive than I imagine... I'm OK trying to shim a fix into the config file used by AWSY, rather than changing this pref here, if you're concerned.
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Well, of course if we actually re-use those decoded images rather than redecoding them, we'd save that decoding energy too. :) I'm not that conerned about this value. It was not arrived at scientifically. We should just go in to this with eyes open.
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 606000 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 Review of attachment 606000 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I had initially misread this bug as changing the timeout. However, this just makes us a little more accurate towards our timeout deadlines, which I am fine with.
Attachment #606000 -
Flags: review?(joe) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/803853bf2a55
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
status-firefox14:
--- → fixed
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/803853bf2a55
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla14
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•