Use TaskScheduler instead of blocking pool in profile_impl_io_data.cc.

Use TaskScheduler instead of blocking pool in profile_impl_io_data.cc.

The blocking pool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=erg@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#466765}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d50542f37d5733bdba90ec0b137127ecf37c8116

[fdoray, 2017-04-24 18:44:28]

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

[fdoray, 2017-04-24 18:44:30]

PTAL!

This CL was generated automatically.

Please make sure that the appropriate TaskTraits are used to post tasks.
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h
If everything looks good, please lgtm and CQ this CL. Otherwise, tell
us what's wrong.

Thanks!

- FAQ -

What if bots are red? Ignore this CL. A human will look at errors shortly.

What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no .WithTaskPriority())?
When there is no explicit priority, the priority is inherited from the
calling context (e.g. a task posted from a BACKGROUND task without an
explicit priority will have a BACKGROUND priority).

What if the shutdown behavior is not set explicitly
(no .WithShutdownBehavior())?
If shutdown behavior is important for a task, it should be set explicitly.
It's not necessary to specify it if you're fine with either BLOCK_SHUTDOWN
or SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-24 18:45:41]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[Elliot Glaysher, 2017-04-24 20:12:27]

lgtm

[fdoray, 2017-04-24 20:13:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by fdoray@chromium.org

[fdoray, 2017-04-24 20:13:50]

The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-24 20:14:04]

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, 2017-04-24 21:13:14]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1493064830125980, "parent_rev":
"060db36535689ed73b7c453726a07b4185074938", "commit_rev":
"d50542f37d5733bdba90ec0b137127ecf37c8116"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-24 21:13:24]

Description was changed from

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of blocking pool in profile_impl_io_data.cc.

The blocking pool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=erg@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of blocking pool in profile_impl_io_data.cc.

The blocking pool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=erg@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#466765}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d50542f37d5733bdba90ec0b1371...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-24 21:13:25]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d50542f37d5733bdba90ec0b1371...

[gab, 2017-08-15 00:02:43]

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

[gab, 2017-08-15 00:02:44]

Just stumbled on this code, I don't the choice of TaskPriority::BACKGROUND here
is correct, WDYT?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc:508:
base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND)),
This call also lands in net::SQLiteChannelIDStore's constructor

https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc:654:
base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND)));
I don't think TaskPriority::BACKGROUND is correct here, although
net::SQLiteChannelIDStore()'s API states that this is its "background task
runner", it also states it uses it for all I/O operations. This is tied to the
cookie store and I assume some of these I/O operations will include reads for
user visible content.

[fdoray, 2017-08-16 15:56:18]

On 2017/08/15 00:02:44, gab wrote:
> Just stumbled on this code, I don't the choice of TaskPriority::BACKGROUND
here
> is correct, WDYT?
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
> File chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
> chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc:508:
> base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND)),
> This call also lands in net::SQLiteChannelIDStore's constructor
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2841593003/diff/1/chrome/browser/profiles/pro...
> chrome/browser/profiles/profile_impl_io_data.cc:654:
> base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND)));
> I don't think TaskPriority::BACKGROUND is correct here, although
> net::SQLiteChannelIDStore()'s API states that this is its "background task
> runner", it also states it uses it for all I/O operations. This is tied to the
> cookie store and I assume some of these I/O operations will include reads for
> user visible content.

Asked Elliot Glaysher to check that via email.