Remove in-process call to SetProcessBackgrounded.

Remove in-process call to SetProcessBackgrounded.

This was causing latency on switching tabs.

BUG=398103, 381820
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=287571

[Will Harris, 2014-08-04 23:23:45]

see the huge email thread for details on this.  Basically the crashes were still
at around 3% with the call in, so I'm going to remove it until we have a way of
measuring the impact of backgrounding this intensively.

[Will Harris, 2014-08-04 23:24:34]

On 2014/08/04 23:23:45, Will Harris wrote:
> see the huge email thread for details on this.  Basically the crashes were
still
> at around 3% with the call in, so I'm going to remove it until we have a way
of
> measuring the impact of backgrounding this intensively.

I'm leaving the I/O thread vs main thread code in because it's likely that any
fix we do to this code in future might still need the ability to call the
SetProcessBackgrounded from the I/O thread.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-08-05 09:07:46]

lgtm

[Will Harris, 2014-08-05 15:03:17]

The CQ bit was checked by wfh@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-05 15:04:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/wfh@chromium.org/435333002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-05 18:22:56]

Change committed as 287571

[jam, 2014-08-05 19:02:40]

On 2014/08/04 23:24:34, Will Harris wrote:
> On 2014/08/04 23:23:45, Will Harris wrote:
> > see the huge email thread for details on this.  Basically the crashes were
> still
> > at around 3% with the call in, so I'm going to remove it until we have a way
> of
> > measuring the impact of backgrounding this intensively.
> 
> I'm leaving the I/O thread vs main thread code in because it's likely that any
> fix we do to this code in future might still need the ability to call the
> SetProcessBackgrounded from the I/O thread.

I think we should remove the unnecessary filter now. If you need it later, it's
trivial to bring it. no need to leave unused complexity in the code base.

[Will Harris, 2014-08-05 19:04:53]

On 2014/08/05 19:02:40, jam wrote:
> On 2014/08/04 23:24:34, Will Harris wrote:
> > On 2014/08/04 23:23:45, Will Harris wrote:
> > > see the huge email thread for details on this.  Basically the crashes were
> > still
> > > at around 3% with the call in, so I'm going to remove it until we have a
way
> > of
> > > measuring the impact of backgrounding this intensively.
> > 
> > I'm leaving the I/O thread vs main thread code in because it's likely that
any
> > fix we do to this code in future might still need the ability to call the
> > SetProcessBackgrounded from the I/O thread.
> 
> I think we should remove the unnecessary filter now. If you need it later,
it's
> trivial to bring it. no need to leave unused complexity in the code base.

okay I will prepare a CL to remove this filter.