Move frame eviction into components

Move frame eviction into components

Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and no need to depend on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#465481}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e012eb7d8849c55a50689509a81eb0a9588485da

[xing.xu, 2017-04-11 08:39:26]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[xing.xu, 2017-04-11 08:39:50]

Description was changed from

==========
Move DelegatedFrameEvictor into components

DelegatedFrameEvictor depends little on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
==========

to

==========
Move DelegatedFrameEvictor into components

DelegatedFrameEvictor depends little on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
==========

[xing.xu, 2017-04-11 08:39:50]

xing.xu@intel.com changed reviewers:
+ boliu@chromium.org, jbauman@chromium.org, sadrul@chromium.org,
samans@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-11 08:40:01]

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

[xing.xu, 2017-04-11 08:40:13]

PTAL.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-11 09:08:32]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-11 09:08:33]

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

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-11 14:58:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/delegated_frame_evictor.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/delegated_frame_evictor.h:20: class
DISPLAY_COMPOSITOR_EXPORT DelegatedFrameEvictor
I would rather Delegated to be removed from the name, but I'm not sure and I'm
curious what other people think.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is this one
on too?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/renderer_frame_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/renderer_frame_manager.h:33: class
DISPLAY_COMPOSITOR_EXPORT RendererFrameManager
I think this class should have a more general name such as FrameEvictionManager
because renderer is not a thing in the display compositor and also eventually
this class manages all frames not just those that come from the renderer.

[boliu, 2017-04-11 15:26:43]

is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-11 15:30:41]

On 2017/04/11 15:26:43, boliu wrote:
> is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?

Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and
we don't want dependency on content.

[boliu, 2017-04-11 15:37:29]

On 2017/04/11 15:30:41, Saman Sami wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 15:26:43, boliu wrote:
> > is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?
> 
> Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and
> we don't want dependency on content.

Put that in the description please

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is this
one
> on too?

The real problem here is that this is an implicit dependency on content, since
MemoryCoordinator is a content feature.

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-11 15:40:31]

On 2017/04/11 15:37:29, boliu wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 15:30:41, Saman Sami wrote:
> > On 2017/04/11 15:26:43, boliu wrote:
> > > is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?
> > 
> > Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor
and
> > we don't want dependency on content.
> 
> Put that in the description please
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
> base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
> On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> > I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is this
> one
> > on too?
> 
> The real problem here is that this is an implicit dependency on content, since
> MemoryCoordinator is a content feature.

base::MemoryCoordinatorProxy already exists which is used for accessing
MemoryCoordinator outside of content.

[boliu, 2017-04-11 15:49:04]

On 2017/04/11 15:40:31, Saman Sami wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 15:37:29, boliu wrote:
> > On 2017/04/11 15:30:41, Saman Sami wrote:
> > > On 2017/04/11 15:26:43, boliu wrote:
> > > > is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?
> > > 
> > > Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor
> and
> > > we don't want dependency on content.
> > 
> > Put that in the description please
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> > File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> > components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
> > base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
> > On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> > > I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is
this
> > one
> > > on too?
> > 
> > The real problem here is that this is an implicit dependency on content,
since
> > MemoryCoordinator is a content feature.
> 
> base::MemoryCoordinatorProxy already exists which is used for accessing
> MemoryCoordinator outside of content.

Ahh, so browser and renderer has different implementations. The comment on Proxy
says it's designed to be used from layers below content, but there are no
existing examples. I guess you should ask owners there how to access the feature
then, because duplicating it is not ok. I'm guessing just need to move the
feature declaration into base

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-11 17:14:00]

samans@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ fsamuel@chromium.org

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-11 17:15:46]

On 2017/04/11 15:49:04, boliu wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 15:40:31, Saman Sami wrote:
> > On 2017/04/11 15:37:29, boliu wrote:
> > > On 2017/04/11 15:30:41, Saman Sami wrote:
> > > > On 2017/04/11 15:26:43, boliu wrote:
> > > > > is this solving a specific DEPS problem? what problem is that exactly?
> > > > 
> > > > Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display
compositor
> > and
> > > > we don't want dependency on content.
> > > 
> > > Put that in the description please
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> > > File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
> > > components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
> > > base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
> > > On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> > > > I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is
> this
> > > one
> > > > on too?
> > > 
> > > The real problem here is that this is an implicit dependency on content,
> since
> > > MemoryCoordinator is a content feature.
> > 
> > base::MemoryCoordinatorProxy already exists which is used for accessing
> > MemoryCoordinator outside of content.
> 
> Ahh, so browser and renderer has different implementations. The comment on
Proxy
> says it's designed to be used from layers below content, but there are no
> existing examples. I guess you should ask owners there how to access the
feature
> then, because duplicating it is not ok. I'm guessing just need to move the
> feature declaration into base

I think also something as simple as calling into the proxy and checking if it
returns null or not should work, but we should confirm with the owners. Adding
fsamuel@ for review.

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 02:15:19]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 02:15:34]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 02:16:04]

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

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 02:57:30]

Description was changed from

==========
Move DelegatedFrameEvictor into components

DelegatedFrameEvictor depends little on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
==========

to

==========
Move frame eviction into components

Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and
no need to depend on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
==========

[Fady Samuel, 2017-04-12 03:17:02]

I don't think we know what the final state of this code will be yet, but it
certainly doesn't belong in content/. Perhaps we can put it in
components/viz/frame_sinks for now?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
File components/display_compositor/frame_eviction_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
components/display_compositor/frame_eviction_manager.h:1: // Copyright 2013 The
Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
nit: 2017

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
File components/display_compositor/frame_evictor.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
components/display_compositor/frame_evictor.cc:1: // Copyright 2013 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
nit: 2017

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
File components/display_compositor/frame_evictor.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
components/display_compositor/frame_evictor.h:1: // Copyright 2013 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
nit: 2017

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-12 03:20:48]

samans@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bashi@chromium.org

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-12 03:29:15]

bashi@ what do you think we should do to check whether memory coordinator is on
outside of content? Should we move the feature to base? I was thinking maybe we
should just call into the proxy and see if it returns null.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 05:26:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 05:26:17]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 08:08:08]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 08:08:28]

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

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 08:09:40]

xing.xu@intel.com changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 08:36:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 08:36:57]

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

[xing.xu, 2017-04-12 16:16:30]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 16:17:16]

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, 2017-04-12 18:10:45]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-12 18:10:46]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)

[bashi, 2017-04-13 01:36:01]

On 2017/04/12 03:29:15, Saman Sami wrote:
> bashi@ what do you think we should do to check whether memory coordinator is
on
> outside of content? Should we move the feature to base? I was thinking maybe
we
> should just call into the proxy and see if it returns null.

I'm not sure we can move the feature flag to base/. IIUC we don't have
base_features.h. Probably checking proxy == null would be enough?

[xing.xu, 2017-04-13 05:28:20]

This is almost done. But still with trouble with warning LNK4217 in win dbg
compile.
 
I tried move //components/viz/frame_sinks into public_deps
content/browser/BUILD.gn as this 
https://codereview.chromium.org/2819493002/diff/1/content/browser/BUILD.gn, but
reports:
FAILED: content.dll content.dll.lib content.dll.pdb
E:/b/depot_tools/python276_bin/python.exe
../../build/toolchain/win/tool_wrapper.py link-wrapper environment.x86 False
link.exe /nologo /IMPLIB:./content.dll.lib /DLL /OUT:./content.dll
/PDB:./content.dll.pdb @./content.dll.rsp delegated_frame_host.obj : warning
LNK4217: locally defined symbol ??1FrameEvictorClient@viz@@UAE@XZ (public:
virtual __thiscall viz::FrameEvictorClient::~FrameEvictorClient(void)) imported
in function "public: virtual __thiscall
content::DelegatedFrameHost::~DelegatedFrameHost(void)"
(??1DelegatedFrameHost@content@@UAE@XZ) LINK : error LNK1218: warning treated as
error; no output file generated 

Also tried pragma warning(suppress : 4275) in 
https://codereview.chromium.org/2819493002/diff/20001/components/viz/frame_si...,
and report above errors.


Do you have any hints about how to fix this?

[jbauman, 2017-04-13 08:01:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/80001/components/viz/frame_si...
File components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/80001/components/viz/frame_si...
components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn:5: source_set("frame_sinks") {
I think this needs to be a component if you're making a VIZ_EXPORT for it. That
could cause the issue you're seeing.

[xing.xu, 2017-04-13 15:38:50]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-13 15:39:21]

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, 2017-04-13 16:47:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-13 16:47:17]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)

[xing.xu, 2017-04-14 00:55:37]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-14 00:56:16]

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, 2017-04-14 02:54:37]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-14 02:54:39]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[xing.xu, 2017-04-14 02:57:25]

Thanks, jbauman, move source_set to components works.

Hi, all guys, code refactor according to your suggestion. PTAL, thank!

[xing.xu, 2017-04-14 03:01:30]

PTAL, thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/delegated_frame_evictor.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/delegated_frame_evictor.h:20: class
DISPLAY_COMPOSITOR_EXPORT DelegatedFrameEvictor
On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> I would rather Delegated to be removed from the name, but I'm not sure and I'm
> curious what other people think.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is this
one
> on too?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/display_compositor_features.cc:15: const
base::Feature kMemoryCoordinator{"MemoryCoordinator",
On 2017/04/11 15:37:29, boliu wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> > I wonder if this works properly? So if the feature in content is on, is this
> one
> > on too?
> 
> The real problem here is that this is an implicit dependency on content, since
> MemoryCoordinator is a content feature.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
File components/display_compositor/renderer_frame_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/1/components/display_composit...
components/display_compositor/renderer_frame_manager.h:33: class
DISPLAY_COMPOSITOR_EXPORT RendererFrameManager
On 2017/04/11 14:58:24, Saman Sami wrote:
> I think this class should have a more general name such as
FrameEvictionManager
> because renderer is not a thing in the display compositor and also eventually
> this class manages all frames not just those that come from the renderer.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
File components/display_compositor/frame_eviction_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/40001/components/display_comp...
components/display_compositor/frame_eviction_manager.h:1: // Copyright 2013 The
Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2017/04/12 03:17:02, Fady Samuel wrote:
> nit: 2017

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/80001/components/viz/frame_si...
File components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/80001/components/viz/frame_si...
components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn:5: source_set("frame_sinks") {
On 2017/04/13 08:01:42, jbauman wrote:
> I think this needs to be a component if you're making a VIZ_EXPORT for it.
That
> could cause the issue you're seeing.

Done.

[boliu, 2017-04-14 03:27:22]

content/browser lgtm

[xing.xu, 2017-04-15 07:51:09]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-15 07:51:20]

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, 2017-04-15 07:58:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-15 07:58:18]

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

[xing.xu, 2017-04-15 08:36:17]

PTAL：
** Presubmit ERRORS **
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for these files:
    components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn
    components/viz/frame_sinks/DEPS
    components/viz/frame_sinks/frame_eviction_manager.cc
    components/viz/frame_sinks/frame_eviction_manager.h
    components/viz/frame_sinks/frame_evictor.cc
    components/viz/frame_sinks/frame_evictor.h
    components/viz/frame_sinks/mojo_frame_sink_manager.h
    components/viz/frame_sinks/viz_export.h

[jam, 2017-04-17 15:47:05]

you have lots of reviewers added, so please point each one to which files you
want them to review

[xing.xu, 2017-04-17 22:03:02]

xing.xu@intel.com changed reviewers:
- bashi@chromium.org, jam@chromium.org

[xing.xu, 2017-04-17 22:04:46]

On 2017/04/17 15:47:05, jam wrote:
> you have lots of reviewers added, so please point each one to which files you
> want them to review

Thanks, this still require LGTM from: jbauman@

[Saman Sami, 2017-04-18 15:00:36]

Not an owner but overall lgtm, with one question.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/120001/components/viz/frame_s...
File components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/120001/components/viz/frame_s...
components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn:5: component("frame_sinks") {
Why did this become a component?

[jbauman, 2017-04-18 22:12:10]

lgtm

[xing.xu, 2017-04-19 00:35:35]

On 2017/04/18 15:00:36, Saman Sami wrote:
> Not an owner but overall lgtm, with one question.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/120001/components/viz/frame_s...
> File components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/120001/components/viz/frame_s...
> components/viz/frame_sinks/BUILD.gn:5: component("frame_sinks") {
> Why did this become a component?

Because
https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/diff/120001/content/browser/render...
implements viz::FrameEvictorClient.
If source_set, this will trigger build warning LNK4217 in win dbg.

[xing.xu, 2017-04-19 00:37:21]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 00:38:23]

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, 2017-04-19 00:44:27]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 00:44:28]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[xing.xu, 2017-04-19 00:55:02]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com

[xing.xu, 2017-04-19 00:55:03]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from samans@chromium.org,
boliu@chromium.org, jbauman@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002/#ps140001
(title: "Rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 00:55:25]

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, 2017-04-19 00:59:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 00:59:57]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)
  win_clang on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_clang/builds/...)

[xing.xu, 2017-04-19 02:18:48]

The CQ bit was checked by xing.xu@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 02:19:15]

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, 2017-04-19 03:19:46]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 140001, "attempt_start_ts": 1492568328541860,
"parent_rev": "faf2ee225610f256279fe77bf1413bb512dec3c2", "commit_rev":
"e012eb7d8849c55a50689509a81eb0a9588485da"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 03:19:56]

Description was changed from

==========
Move frame eviction into components

Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and
no need to depend on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709
==========

to

==========
Move frame eviction into components

Eventually frame eviction will be solely handled by the display compositor and
no need to depend on content, so move it into components.

BUG=709709

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2811083002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#465481}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e012eb7d8849c55a50689509a81e...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-19 03:19:57]

Committed patchset #7 (id:140001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e012eb7d8849c55a50689509a81e...