41–50 of 403 posts
Pretty annoying if you want a game to continue running in the background :/
It's awesome to see Chrome trying to improve performance for people with many tabs open, which is many of us. I use a LOT of tabs, and the best plugin has been The Great Suspender. Highly recommend it for anyone who wants memory & CPU back and keeps many tabs/windows open at once: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
Why not have a "this page would like to perform work in the background [allow|block]" notification?
Can we aggressively throttle memory usage? Why does it require 300-500MB of ram PER TAB?
Does Chrome only use RAM if it thinks it is available? (i.e. if it starts detecting that other process are running and eating up RAM, will it use less?)
With 4 GB ram, Chrome will happily give ~2GB to any tab that requests it in a couple of seconds, leaving me with an unresponsive Windows aggressively paging memory to disk, only to give whatever it finds... back to chrome
Oh god, please change the title. It's about timers, not bandwidth. I was already imagining streaming music from Spotify and having hiccups all day.
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/XRq...
Why not have a "this page would like to perform work in the background [allow|block]" notification?
Better IMO to bury the choice deep in settings or something, for power users, if you even offer the choice at all.
I like the change as a general idea but there obviously needs to be a manual override. Like, I don't want websites to access my camera without permission but obviously I want to allow some websites to do that. A similar permission could be used here and is perfectly backwards compatible: 1. a tab exceeds its quota and throttling kicks in; 2. you visit the tab to check why it stopped working; 3. you get a permission p…
www.foobar.com wants to:
"Run in the background unthrottled"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Measuring memory usage is hard on a modern OS. Not in the slightest. OS's have to allocate virtual memory to each process or that process with SIG-FAULT when it touches invalid memory. Tracking per-process memory usage is one of the most trivial things OS/Pref tools do.
Measuring it is easy. Defining it is what's hard. If three processes each have the same 10MB executable mapped into memory, plus 10MB of heap data, how much memory is each process using? There's no easy answer to that question.
Defining it is what's hard.
how much memory is each process using?
Oh but they are sharing the pages the executable is mapped into.
So how can you can you say they are each using that much RAM?
The semantics that each process is sharing 5 HUGEPAGES of heap isn't really important as even if 1 was running alone it uses that much memory.
If you are sharing that much data with executables that you have this problem there is some low hanging fruit for memory optimizations you can do.
Oh but you aren't *actually* using 60MB of Heap, only 40MB
Shared/unshared semantics are not hard. Have you ever read /proc/$PID/maps ? Because it clearly labels what is/isn't shared physically. When you are optimizing for memory usage you rarely look at shared readonly pages as the kernel put them there for you.
Defining it is what's hard.
Measurements inform Interpretation. Not vice versa.
And just let us allow tabs to grab all the resources they want on a opt-in basis. Why not?
* Before anyone brings up the inevitable economic argument - it wouldn't take a lot of man hours to do these things, I dare say it would just take one or two persons who are capable to be willing and allowed to do them. And compared to all sorts of things that browsers vendors made and get scrapped, you at least know tabs will always use ram, CPU and load assets over the network, so it's not ever going to be completely useless.