Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=clamy@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#472806}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/098c35c20b6879046acd7b2922751dc199c31bc6

[fdoray, 2017-05-12 17:35:09]

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

[fdoray, 2017-05-12 17:35:12]

Please take a look.

This CL was generated automatically.

The base::MayBlock() trait was specified for all call sites and the
base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND trait was specified for all non-test call sites.
That may not be appropriate for your use case.

Please verify that appropriate traits were used
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h
If everything looks good, 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 shutdown behavior is not set explicitly (no
base::TaskShutdownBehavior)?
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. Note that the default shutdown behavior is BLOCK_SHUTDOWN in
SequencedWorkerPool and SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN in TaskScheduler.

What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no base::TaskPriority)?
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).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:36:06]

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, 2017-05-12 18:17:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 18:17:53]

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

[clamy, 2017-05-15 12:58:42]

Description was changed from

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in
storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

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

to

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in
storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

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

[clamy, 2017-05-15 12:58:42]

clamy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nasko@chromium.org

[clamy, 2017-05-15 12:59:23]

@nasko: PTAL. I've seen that you've worked in the file before, and I want to
check that the priority is the right one for this use case. Thanks!

[fdoray, 2017-05-15 13:22:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-15 13:23:23]

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, 2017-05-15 13:54:44]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-15 13:54:45]

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...)

[nasko, 2017-05-16 04:11:40]

On 2017/05/15 12:59:23, clamy (ooo until May 25) wrote:
> @nasko: PTAL. I've seen that you've worked in the file before, and I want to
> check that the priority is the right one for this use case. Thanks!

There are failing checks in tests, please correct those and I'll take a look.

[fdoray, 2017-05-16 12:16:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-16 12:16:30]

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, 2017-05-16 12:27:30]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-16 12:27:31]

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

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 17:38:57]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-17 17:40:22]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 17:41:43]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-17 17:42:14]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 17:43:32]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-17 17:44:10]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 20:37:49]

On 2017/05/16 04:11:40, nasko (out) wrote:
> On 2017/05/15 12:59:23, clamy (ooo until May 25) wrote:
> > @nasko: PTAL. I've seen that you've worked in the file before, and I want to
> > check that the priority is the right one for this use case. Thanks!
> 
> There are failing checks in tests, please correct those and I'll take a look.

Done. Please take a look.

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 20:38:08]

fdoray@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 20:38:09]

+jam@ since outer reviewers are ooo

[fdoray, 2017-05-17 20:38:34]

+jam@ since other reviewers are ooo

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-17 21:26:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-17 21:26:53]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[jam, 2017-05-18 14:20:15]

lgtm if the answer to my question is no-new-thread

https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002/diff/80001/content/browser/storage...
File content/browser/storage_partition_impl_map.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002/diff/80001/content/browser/storage...
content/browser/storage_partition_impl_map.cc:373:
file_access_runner_(base::CreateSequencedTaskRunnerWithTraits(
just to double check: this doesn't create a unique thread right? (would be good
to make this clear in the comments for the method)

[fdoray, 2017-05-18 14:51:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002/diff/80001/content/browser/storage...
File content/browser/storage_partition_impl_map.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002/diff/80001/content/browser/storage...
content/browser/storage_partition_impl_map.cc:373:
file_access_runner_(base::CreateSequencedTaskRunnerWithTraits(
On 2017/05/18 14:20:14, jam wrote:
> just to double check: this doesn't create a unique thread right? (would be
good
> to make this clear in the comments for the method)

No, it doesn't create a new thread. I will make this clearer in the
documentation.

[fdoray, 2017-05-18 14:51:43]

The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-18 14:52:17]

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, 2017-05-18 14:58:01]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 80001, "attempt_start_ts": 1495119103414670,
"parent_rev": "659da7906d9027de3e9eb0a436ea92b586e1f5d8", "commit_rev":
"098c35c20b6879046acd7b2922751dc199c31bc6"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-18 14:58:11]

Description was changed from

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in
storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

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

to

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in
storage_partition_impl_map.cc.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=clamy@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2879963002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#472806}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/098c35c20b6879046acd7b292275...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-18 14:58:12]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/098c35c20b6879046acd7b292275...