Re: RFC: Electrolysis manifesto: Chrome never blocks on content

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/23/10 10:14 AM, Mike Shaver wrote:
>
>> What does "reply to chrome->content re-entry" mean, then, and why do
>> we care if it computes something for which the duration is
>> controllable by web content?
>
> I think cjones is incorrect about chrome->content re-entery with RPC
> messages, because we don't allow RPC messages in that direction. However,
> the content->chrome message still has to be RPC (instead of sync)

In that case, yeah, it's fine.

I presume that we can't end up with a content->chrome rpc blocking the
content process, and then the chrome process blocking because a queue
is too full for it to post an async message to the same content
process, right?

Mike