cc: Add checker-imaging support to TileManager.

cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc

Index: cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc
diff --git a/cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc b/cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc
index 722b05392d37f7cf0535eea68288bf35f1bf37bf..6282f1aa5b8dd4d1f82a6821c029d130946aab9a 100644
--- a/cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc
+++ b/cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl.cc
@@ -236,8 +236,7 @@ LayerTreeHostImpl::LayerTreeHostImpl(
                     is_synchronous_single_threaded_
                         ? std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()
                         : settings.scheduled_raster_task_limit,
-                    settings.use_partial_raster,
-                    settings.check_tile_priority_inversion),
+                    settings.ToTileManagerSettings()),
       pinch_gesture_active_(false),
       pinch_gesture_end_should_clear_scrolling_layer_(false),
       fps_counter_(
@@ -352,6 +351,12 @@ void LayerTreeHostImpl::BeginCommit() {
 void LayerTreeHostImpl::CommitComplete() {
   TRACE_EVENT0("cc", "LayerTreeHostImpl::CommitComplete");
 
+  UpdateSyncTreeAfterCommitOrImplSideInvalidation();
+  micro_benchmark_controller_.DidCompleteCommit();

[vmpstr, 2017/02/10 19:25:43]

hmm why did you move the micro benchmark controller call out? I think you can
keep that in where it was. It's unlikely that it will affect anything when
interacting with check imaging

[Khushal, 2017/02/10 22:09:19]

It shouldn't. I took a look at that and there should be no benchmarks on the
recycle tree so this will be a no-op. If we know that we should just do
everything with an impl-side pending tree that we do with one from the main
thread, then is the "UpdateSynctreeAfter..." thing even necessary? I can just
call CommitComplete and leave it at that?

+}
+
+void LayerTreeHostImpl::UpdateSyncTreeAfterCommitOrImplSideInvalidation() {
+  AddImplSideInvalidationToSyncTree();
   if (CommitToActiveTree()) {
     // We have to activate animations here or "IsActive()" is true on the layers
     // but the animations aren't activated yet so they get ignored by
@@ -393,8 +398,6 @@ void LayerTreeHostImpl::CommitComplete() {
     if (CommitToActiveTree())
       NotifyReadyToDraw();
   }
-
-  micro_benchmark_controller_.DidCompleteCommit();
 }
 
 bool LayerTreeHostImpl::CanDraw() const {
@@ -1054,6 +1057,19 @@ void LayerTreeHostImpl::SetViewportDamage(const gfx::Rect& damage_rect) {
   viewport_damage_rect_.Union(damage_rect);
 }
 
+void LayerTreeHostImpl::InvalidateContentOnImplSide() {
+  DCHECK(!pending_tree_);
+
+  if (!CommitToActiveTree())
+    CreatePendingTree();
+  UpdateSyncTreeAfterCommitOrImplSideInvalidation();
+}
+
+void LayerTreeHostImpl::AddImplSideInvalidationToSyncTree() {
+  sync_tree()->InvalidateRegionForImages(

[vmpstr, 2017/02/10 19:25:43]

Just inline this call where the function is called (no need to add a function
for this)

[Khushal, 2017/02/10 22:09:19]

Done.

+      tile_manager_.TakeImagesToInvalidateOnSyncTree());
+}
+
 DrawResult LayerTreeHostImpl::PrepareToDraw(FrameData* frame) {
   TRACE_EVENT1("cc", "LayerTreeHostImpl::PrepareToDraw", "SourceFrameNumber",
                active_tree_->source_frame_number());
@@ -1311,6 +1327,10 @@ gfx::ColorSpace LayerTreeHostImpl::GetTileColorSpace() const {
   return sync_tree()->device_color_space();
 }
 
+void LayerTreeHostImpl::RequestImplSideInvalidation() {
+  client_->NeedsImplSideInvalidation();
+}
+
 void LayerTreeHostImpl::NotifyReadyToActivate() {
   client_->NotifyReadyToActivate();
 }
@@ -2026,6 +2046,7 @@ void LayerTreeHostImpl::ActivateSyncTree() {
   if (!active_tree_->picture_layers().empty())
     DidModifyTilePriorities();
 
+  tile_manager_.DidActivateSyncTree();
   client_->OnCanDrawStateChanged(CanDraw());
   client_->DidActivateSyncTree();
   if (!tree_activation_callback_.is_null())