Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400
Committed: https://crrev.com/72b1a059ae930ebe1dda804e607f251d3ae94a70
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439575}

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:27:14]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:27:52]

gab@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ michaeln@chromium.org

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:27:53]

@michaeln PTAL, thanks!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 22:28:00]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:29:28]

Description was changed from

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

BUG=665588, 622400
==========

to

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of 
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400
==========

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:31:12]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 22:31:24]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:33:58]

gab@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nick@chromium.org

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:34:43]

On 2016/12/15 22:27:53, gab wrote:
> @michaeln PTAL, thanks!

@nick for content_browser_client.* addition

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 22:36:26]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 22:36:27]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-device on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device/builds...)
  ios-device-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device-xcode-...)
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)
  ios-simulator-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator-xco...)

[gab, 2016-12-15 22:42:11]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 22:43:09]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[ncarter (slow), 2016-12-15 23:18:02]

lgtm

[michaeln, 2016-12-15 23:57:09]

lgtm 2

> If anything that's a good
agreed

[gab, 2016-12-16 00:21:31]

The CQ bit was unchecked by gab@chromium.org

[gab, 2016-12-16 00:21:37]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 00:22:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 00:22:19]

This CL has an open dependency (Issue 2574403002 Patch 20001). Please resolve
the dependency and try again.
If you are sure that there is no real dependency, please use one of the options
listed in https://goo.gl/9Es4OR to land the CL.

[gab, 2016-12-16 13:25:16]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 13:25:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 14:24:51]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 14:24:52]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[gab, 2016-12-16 17:21:58]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 17:22:48]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 17:54:30]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 17:54:31]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)

[gab, 2016-12-16 18:37:34]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 18:38:18]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 19:10:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 19:10:22]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_comp...)
  mac_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[gab, 2016-12-16 21:09:42]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 21:10:51]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 23:13:10]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-16 23:13:13]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_asan_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[gab, 2016-12-19 20:23:43]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org

[gab, 2016-12-19 20:23:43]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
michaeln@chromium.org, nick@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2576243003/#ps120001
(title: "fix compile")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 20:24:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 21:40:53]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 120001, "attempt_start_ts": 1482179023086730,
"parent_rev": "47f6a8306fcecbf488e012ae6f00b0418802d409", "commit_rev":
"fc1d58305b4f577ca0579611e629a03232e7bcc4"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 21:41:18]

Description was changed from

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of 
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400
==========

to

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of 
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2576243003
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 21:41:19]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 21:44:21]

Description was changed from

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of 
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2576243003
==========

to

==========
Add an experiment to redirect DOMStorageTaskRunner to TaskScheduler.

Using a bug as an opportunity to experiment with TaskScheduler (as well
as confirm the issue is what we think it is: a priority inversion where
a sync IPC from the renderer is blocking on a response from the
BlockingPool).

Only logical difference is that TaskScheduler doesn't have a notion of
named sequences and as such every DOMStorageContextWrapper will have its
own primary and commit sequence instead of sharing one with other
DOMStorageContextWrapper. If anything that's a good thing as it allows
multiple profiles to do their DOMStorage ops in parallel? Don't think
this can conflict..?

BUG=665588, 622400

Committed: https://crrev.com/72b1a059ae930ebe1dda804e607f251d3ae94a70
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439575}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-19 21:44:22]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/72b1a059ae930ebe1dda804e607f251d3ae94a70
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439575}