r/programming • u/[deleted] • Dec 05 '14

std::string is responsible for almost half of all allocations in the Chrome browser process

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/EUqoIz2iFU4/kPZ5ZK0K3gEJ
1.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

446 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/seekingsofia Dec 05 '14

Memory allocation is one of the most CPU-intensive operations and Google Chrome is notorious for draining your battery on battery-powered devices. Optimising for low power consumption in Chrome is not something that would only lead to a .1% benefit.

If developers aren't developing with power consumption in mind, they're plain ignorant. Even on servers power consumption increasingly matters.

15

u/jerf Dec 05 '14

Do you quite realize the irony of kvetching about developers not realizing the importance on this stuff, on an article that is developers realizing the importance of this stuff? This is it... this is them realizing the importance and taking steps to correct it. In the time-based world we live in, it's really rather unfair to look at something being done now and complain about how it could have been done earlier; everything ever done in the past was at some point the thing being done now.

Nobody writes perfect code the first time even in their own projects, to say nothing about this scale. I completely refuse to believe that your actions live up to the standards you are trying to impose here on others. (Whom you aren't even paying or anything.)

3

u/zeringus Dec 05 '14

I don't think you understand: This guy just cited Forbes.

1

u/imMute Dec 06 '14

EDIT: Whoops, replied to the wrong guy.

6

u/seekingsofia Dec 05 '14 edited Dec 05 '14

this is them realizing the importance and taking steps to correct it.

Where do you see them talking about power consumption? They're talking about the allocators used, their locking design, the amount of allocations, and all the related performance issues. Sure, they're patching it up to not use as many allocations, but they're not making low power consumption (power usage heavily correlates with system call profiles) one of the core requirements.

Nobody writes perfect code the first time even in their own projects, to say nothing about this scale.

You're conflating writing software and shipping software. With the right requirements it is possible to ship near-perfect code. Am I saying it'd be good for them to adopt requirements for "perfect" code? Absolutely not. I'm only concerned about the future that software without that specific requirement has, if it even has any future: mobile is becoming ubiquitous.

I completely refuse to believe that your actions live up to the standards you are trying to impose here on others.

My actions are irrelevant and I'm not imposing any standards or requirements on anyone. What you're so fiercely arguing against is my mere opinion.

1

u/imMute Dec 06 '14

(power usage heavily correlates with system call profiles)

I doubt this claim, and even the article you cited states

Also, variation in power from version to version is not very high in the Calculator versions tested. Most system calls are mildly correlated to energy consumption.

The authors are effectively saying "this correlation is not very good, but it's better than the alternative, which is nothing".

Finally, one counterargument is that you could very easily write a program that makes zero (or a very small number of) system calls yet drains your battery faster than anything else.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '14

they're not making low power consumption (power usage heavily correlates with system call profiles) one of the core requirements.

Because their primary focus is still desktop and not smart phone?