Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Google Operating Systems Power Software Hardware Technology

Chrome 57 Limits Background Tabs Usage To 1% Per CPU Core (bleepingcomputer.com) 154

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Starting with Chrome 57, released last week, Google has put a muzzle on the amount of resources background tabs can use. According to Google engineers, Chrome 57 will temporarily delay a background tab's JavaScript timers if that tab is using more than 1% of a CPU core. Further, all background timers are suspended automatically after five minutes on mobile devices. The delay/suspension will halt resource consumption and cut down on battery usage, something that laptop, tablet, and smartphone owners can all relate. Google hinted in late January that it would limit JavaScript timers in background tabs, but nobody expected it to happen as soon as last week's Chrome release. By 2020, Google hopes to pause JavaScript operations in all background pages.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome 57 Limits Background Tabs Usage To 1% Per CPU Core

Comments Filter:
  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:14PM (#54040587)

    Web developers who write javascript that just keeps chewing up resources are why we have to resort to this.... You have no one to blame but yourselves for abusing the privilege of having active content that just sucks resources to get more add revenue....

    I know some of you developers actually think about such stuff and care about the end user's experience, but there are a few of you out there that are messing stuff up for all of us, so now the browser has to throttle you.. Thank You for nothing (from the rest of us).

  • by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:15PM (#54040601) Homepage Journal

    something that laptop, tablet, and smartphone owners can all relate.

    Unless you mean that those people will all testify to the aforementioned something, you're missing either a "to" or a "to which" depending on how pedantic you want to be. Those people don't relate it; they relate to it. It is something they can relate to, or if you want to be fancy, it is something to which they can relate.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:16PM (#54040605) Journal
    I used to wish browsers would do this. But now I know that there are good uses for background processes, even though limiting them to 1% seems fine to me.

    For example, slack changes the tab title and icon when an event happens, like a new message. Gmail updates the title to show how many messages you have. These are reasonable use cases.
    • by Qzukk ( 229616 )

      slack changes the tab title and icon when an event happens, like a new message. Gmail updates the title to show how many messages you have. These are reasonable use cases

      And don't forget my epic cookie clicker run, which I've left in some background tab somewhere for well over a year now!

      • Is that literally just clicking a cookie over and over? Did you set up a script to click it? What number are you on and what is the most epic achievement or whatever you've reached?
        • by Qzukk ( 229616 )

          It was a joke, but only barely. As for the "game" itself, you buy upgrades to make cookies for you and eventually there isn't much point in clicking anymore.

        • And don't forget my epic cookie clicker run, which I've left in some background tab somewhere for well over a year now!

          Is that literally just clicking a cookie over and over?

          No. Cookie Clicker by Orteil is sort of like a distilled version of an RTS tech tree: you spend cookies to buy buildings and upgrades that produce cookies over time.

      • If you like that, check out "Kittens Game", it's been called "The Dark Souls of Idle Games".

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I wish there was manual control on a per-tab basis (or better yet, per site basis).
      And I'd like to be able to set a tab to 0% cpu, just completely halt it, like a SIGSUSP signal.
      Mainly because I do not like web pages to contact the mothership if I am not using them, its a major privacy risk.
      I use a VPN and change my IP address on a regular basis. I can clear cookies, etc. But a web page that phones home with state data will be able to track me across IP addresses. And we all know that if it can be used t

    • by ohnocitizen ( 1951674 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @08:35PM (#54040997)
      This feature should allow whitelisting domains to keep javascript fully active. I want my email client to keep running javascript. I don't want some random news page I left open to decide it's time to launch a video ad.
      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        We are talking browers and you start talking about what you want in your email client. Are we really there where even on /. people think that a browser is the same as an email client when you see your mail?

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @07:43AM (#54042761) Homepage Journal

        How much of your quad core 3GHz CPU does the email client need? 1% is still 4x30MHz cores. People used to read email on single core CPUs running under 10MHz, and those cores didn't have advanced features like cache or single cycle multipliers or branch prediction or out-of-order execution.

      • This feature should allow whitelisting domains to keep javascript fully active. I want my email client to keep running javascript. I don't want some random news page I left open to decide it's time to launch a video ad.

        So use a whitelisting system like ublock origin, adblock plus, or noscript. Problem solved. Why would you want every random site you visit to be able to run code on your computer?

    • I've seen a few comments after something like this:

      I use The Great Suspender extension for Chrome. It can kill tabs after a certain period of time and also delays loading them on a Chrome restart (essential for 100+ open tabs) -- you can also whitelist sites.

      https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]

  • Has anyone found a simple way to disable autoplay withing post-Chrome 55?

  • by lucasnate1 ( 4682951 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:22PM (#54040645)

    I'm using facebook and google hangouts to communicate with people. Since I don't want to install applications, I use them as browser tabs. Does this mean I will no longer get noticed when someone messages me?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, you will continue to receive notifications. The tab is limited to 1% of CPU which is more than enough to pop a notification. The background Javascript will not be paused until 2020 as per the summary. I believe notifications go through GCM (Google Cloud Messaging) so will still work even if the background javascript is paused on those sites.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Wat? F*** notifications. Worst feature ever.

      The first thing I do is disable notifications.

      • It's nice that you don't use them, but lots of people do.

      • Why? They are opt in on a per website basis and many websites have a very good reason for using them. So why disable them when you specifically need to enable them for websites in the first place?

        Also it's a great feature. Just like the many other features I use in various software packages that you don't understand and don't see a need for.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Say you have a crappy, low end Chromebook with a 2GHz dual core CPU. Background tabs are limited to 1% per core, so effectively 2x 20MHz cores. Javascript benefits from all the usual optimisations like just-in-time compilation, and the network/rendering stacks are excluded from the limit.

      Even limited to 1%, there is more than enough processing power there to deliver timely chat messages.

    • by strikethree ( 811449 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @09:37AM (#54043373) Journal

      Does this mean I will no longer get noticed when someone messages me?

      If the notifications take more than 1% of a modern processor, then yes, you will not receive timely notifications. It should be noted at this time that fully memory-protected, graphical interface, mostly modernish operating systems used to run with less CPU than even .1% of a modern CPU (Amiga, m68k). I would commit suicide in despair if a notification takes more CPU power than a full operating system. (Why yes, I am preparing the nitrogen bag and morphine now.)

  • by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:26PM (#54040665) Homepage

    Pretty sure Firefox already does something very similar to this. The mobile version does, anyway.

  • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @07:46PM (#54040765)

    Is Microsoft going to stop spamming me with notifications to use Edge on my laptop because my battery will last 30% longer when ever I open Chrome?

  • No wonder 17 tabs of web comics were taking so long to load.
  • by TranquilVoid ( 2444228 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @08:26PM (#54040961)

    A step in the right direction. Next they'll be limiting chome.exe processes to only 80% of installed RAM!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      As someone who runs LOTS of tabs on desktop I don't understand why the parent post has been scored Funny. I've never had cpu consumption issues with chrome while it eats up most of my ram with tabs that I haven't even looked at in my browsing session.

  • Microsoft engineers would do the same for Windows..
  • How ironic, posting this on slashdot when I find it's one of the worst CPU users to leave open thanks to allowing its ads to run. I want to do the right thing but the slashdot ads are surprisingly heavy CPU users. I find myself hitting escape as soon as the news articles have loaded to prevent the ads from loading since it always winds my laptop CPU fan up.
    • I use a different method of blocking ads: Firefox with Tracking Protection enabled globally [mozilla.org]. It blocks only those ad networks and exchanges known to track viewers from one site to another to display interest-based ads, but that's pretty much all of them. Running a tracking blocker rather than an ad blocker also provides plausible deniability against those who claim that ad blockers take food out of writers' children's mouths, as a publisher could in theory instead sell ad space directly to advertisers witho

  • Bleh, big whoop. I've been using the Great Suspender extension to do something similar for quite a while now. After x number of minutes, background tabs are suspended unless I exempt (whitelist) them. The tab is blanked, which frees up ram, and with a mouse click I can reload the page right where I was.
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @09:59PM (#54041283)

    1% is still a huge amount because how absurdly fast our processors have become. Do you know how much you can do with 45MHz? Javascript is being dynamically translated into machine code, so you can still do a LOT. The only thing this addresses is sites that hog the CPU, not any of the nefarious bullshit that sites do to track you every 7 seconds.

    • not any of the nefarious bullshit that sites do to track you every 7 seconds

      Yes and the group policy password enforcement in Windows does not fix that my printer cartridge is empty.

      Like seriously how did you come up with your comment! The answer is "no shit it doesn't as it was never a design goal in the first place".

  • I run hundreds of tabs, I use noscript to whitelist all the good stuff. Adservers almost always run stuff on thier own domain so its easy to blacklist. Now I just want this feature for firefox

  • is going to fuck all kinds of software up.
  • So much for JSMESS, jor1k, v86, em-dosbox and friends...

  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @07:04AM (#54042621)
    Do background tabs really need to eat a quarter-gig?
  • I once made a file uploader that used a new window/tab as a upload queue so people can queue up files to be uploaded in sequence in order to get a better experience than uploading 10-20-100 files simultaneously. That window/tab is supposed to be left alone in the background to do its thing while you go on the main site to queue up more uploads.

    I was moving a "file" element from the main site to the queue window and then just looped and told blueimp/jQuery-File-Upload to upload each file in turn.

    With this qu

  • If I am a web-developer (I am not), I would like to know the exact amount of processing power I am allowed to use when the tab of my page goes on the background, not a percentage. This way I can guarantee a uniform user experience. 1% could be a lot of processing power for some users, making the fix useless, but too little for others, which may lead to some functionalities to be disabled.
  • It's about time. I've been whining about this for 2 years now. To hell with winning the fastest script prize when you grind everything to a halt. (This is the fault of terrible testing mags/sites who weight shit wrongly.)

    It has reached critical mass -- CNN.com takes forever due to massive advertising overlays and chatty stuff. You click the close box, irritated, and it takes 5s to close.

  • AMD-K6 3D (90 bogoids)
    <=
    Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3.50GHz (9940 bogoids) * 1%
    <=
    Via C3 Ezra (100 bogoids)
    <=
    Intel Pentium III Mobile 750MHz (103 bogoids)
    <=
    AMD Athlon 64 2000+ (116 bogoids)
    <=
    Intel Pentium 4 1300MHz (119 bogoids)

    Wow, a couple of clown chips, and a searing indictment of Passmark, all rolled up together.

    You can really see how Passmark should have been properly named Parkay [youtube.com] Malarkey Spinmark.

    Parkay Pentium 4, you are so busted.

    [*] Cooking instructi

  • This will surely break the ability to use things like plex web-app or streaming media without plugins... hope it can be turned off for sites you wish to allow...

  • And there was much rejoicing.

  • What an incredibly good idea. Explorer so desperately needs this. - I know I'm an idiot for using Explorer - couldn't even really say why I ended up then kept using it. Should switch to Chrome - seems much better now than when I last tried it.. Used Netscape for decades until a year after it finally closed - then used Sea Monkey for a while, then somehow found myself using Explorer - despite all its flaws.

    Fixing the resource stealing by malware adds and poorly written web sites would fix most of Explorer

You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.

Working...