-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Audit: Content scrolls at 60fps #1648
Comments
If you're looking for a scroll specific metric, are you wanting latency, or throughput? You can scroll at 60fps with 500ms of lag. If you're focused on scroll currently, I think looking at latency first might make more sense, and then if you want to cover animations in general, you can follow up with Frame Throughput (and hopefully we'll have a FT metric you can use by then). For simulation, ideally you'd use the incredibly poorly named "GPU benchmarking extension", by passing the --enable-gpu-benchmarking flag. That isn't going to be possible though, is it? If not, any thought on how you're going to simulate the input? |
For reference -- the current Frame Throughput metric proposal: LatencyInfo Based Frame Metrics |
The
(more active crbug around this) |
A trace event indicating a dropped frame is now available: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2169848 Here's the related design doc for the devtools perf panel feature: Dropped Frames: Chromium DevTools Design Doc |
UMA for Bug tracking attribution: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1086974 The "Frame Throughput" metric will wait until after TTI to begin measurement. Would it make sense to do the same here for dropped frames? Wait to simulate scrolling until after TTI. but don't actually filter the dropped frames events, as we should include any dropped frames caused by the page scrolling by itself (idk seems like a thing a site might do). |
What we want:
A very nice PR from @surma was put up in #469
Since this PR, we've done a lot of work internally to handle gathering a second trace and passing it off correctly, so we're in better shape now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: