Reprioritization - implementation intent

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 10 July 2020 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D88A3A0DF1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 23:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=Wq44YAyf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=irK4iwN6
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7NYeUAQQ2Sv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 23:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9663A0E4F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 23:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jtmnr-00007H-7K for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:46:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:46:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jtmnr-00007H-7K@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1jtmnp-000069-Kw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:46:33 +0000
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1jtmnl-0001pq-RR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:46:33 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284405C0208; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:46:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=C 1/nrsZc1b72J/NQX0rhm0DPvq2Gqkv++cLMZziAt/0=; b=Wq44YAyfSpNq4gSHM uqHZpf+4gS/tLQD8EmYzfwQfDLCQ/ezxlcc7DCWG9Okwmb1qZtF/QcYrZPteMGwt DM92RJ2/QPyjO5VvFF2ke1coQXlNcysLNZ7YSfr0Gk5uz6l4etUBEB0SrcXG8UuC 3N2f9K3xCyC0rjtMBFJq25OwX6WE+UlS/KxZKYIoUJsCRGo9VyANbEnAuMxsHVf0 qx/23AI6w6RgmagDC6d7SkW0DjZzwja5e6FARs05wfFUjo+rljxyL0S1FNs2D3Uf kEi6vfsARVSBOhRK67XmGcPoem4+xn0blE2XKX1MY4XmmAJkjoZW9TB+2HsCXS4N hS/gg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=C1/nrsZc1b72J/NQX0rhm0DPvq2Gqkv++cLMZziAt /0=; b=irK4iwN6bajTUzgo54algjvtdBFLkTDkKxMk1xKHfXVDFkYCR2uWivDNP QovvuFH+mJT4dkIDzM4jZWJ9pAFVgtjTawy14s/WiUd/R9ZzepD/S/sup4JoUPfQ IMbkItEeNyIScZq/6Q6ENVeIqAewASLagErkbcsqg/jiFEEIqhx1YEB/pfAJ7xUa JabdKpOcLDJgt0PVzbuTN+kvinu/6hAq2SdHY1/m2NvQl6gzQA2B50n/Vo3VuDl2 wxQagZfV86D3xyCnPYvqfmPW3axwFuJPAf7cxtWZYUpBFtkF0/hHktsoKgewv8gO 5olb5Magh7Npk98N8M8HLe3pqdN9g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:uA4IXx65ZIk5d9MiAL82bKLyNmcpLJ717RJNbsLmjj6kgZo6nMqA0Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrvddtgdduudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne gfrhhlucfvnfffucdliedmnecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdt jeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrd hnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeejgeeftdegffekffdthfekjeeifefhtdeiledt hfehhffhgedtvdehfeejleevvdenucffohhmrghinhepthhhvghhvghlmhdrtghopdhnvg hrughfrggtthhorhihrdgrihdpnhhuihigrdgtohhmpdhorghklhgrnhgutghithihtghh uhhrtghhrdhorhhgpdhhthhtphdvuggvphgvnhguihhnghhonhhhohifvgigtghluhhsih hvvghprhhiohhrihhtihgvshgrrhgvuhhsvggurdhimhdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhp peduudelrddujedrudehkedrvdehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:uA4IX-7h0fE0R1Oy0AiejdNySePFaBVUt_9K3ED9zLsuKRv1Kn7Amg> <xmx:uA4IX4deISp81vbhaLpsb4WU2KSyGUbYwzMbGMXR7DBY2oU4XeAFuw> <xmx:uA4IX6L1eWb8SQJaBCE8oDg15MDicj51X1AOvlJNdWb58I1Z39EFeQ> <xmx:uQ4IXzhTCS9zKReOSopHV6BxlTyU9vo4DDHc9fRPcGXqgt4qEItRVw>
Received: from macbook-air.mnot.net (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 19C7B3280060; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9ob5E9ufzut7gZ37HwFvzeUb8mZYcyy=M3xKhS3hCCfyyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:46:08 +1000
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B9F6F51-4F0A-4A41-AA6D-2CB82A1B6531@mnot.net>
References: <CALGR9obRjBSADN1KtKF6jvFVzNS1+JzaS0D0kCVKHKkd4sn+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <459C86F8-A989-4EF4-84DC-3568FF594F36@apple.com> <CANatvzwSpSHd7kZD-4tyMGkBJDdCBi6r_pLBvnaT8rrQy6SBHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3treK0m2mbpw9FebOjOcEed0bW-DbLbryHJH1DWAHoz+9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGy2CytgPVEwEO3nDfpZ6h9+CCL-bODk=65cXexvS3N7Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oYDApddLFzXv180TEXpmTaOpDCDNY41PxmbMJK7N4F4zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMWgRNaMZxph3zQv+O-SW7=PKBtDuGZNQ4+3X2geyXU545Vx9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMWgRNaBAodWewpbi4cqFiMLWVd0SDnau7B4x0tjk+i=sMURpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyQiNXY6xOYju8afe7-T6ZNMtQTPQE-AkfFK=2_yTzB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEhh+K=uMS613OsDFmvH18miNvm9m11M7QsL02Lc+JxUhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGx3-cvPER2q1SPsgTbVP0TwAgPzNCQk_40dDPSr3JfkNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGwXLoVe3RWPMCw9iJQ1Qr0TrJOezWq1VWOqrWYnBneQ4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9ob5E9ufzut7gZ37HwFvzeUb8mZYcyy=M3xKhS3hCCfyyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jtmnl-0001pq-RR d708c21ad056e6e3b7c989a20da465b2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Reprioritization - implementation intent
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/4B9F6F51-4F0A-4A41-AA6D-2CB82A1B6531@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37867
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

All,

Thanks to everyone for their efforts so far.

There's one other aspect that the we think it'd be helpful to get a sense of -- what the implementer intent is regarding reprioritisation.

In particular, it'd be very helpful to have an indication from each implementation -- in user agents as well as servers (including intermediaries) -- as to how likely they are to produce/consume reprioritisations if specified.

Note that's per-implementation, *not* per-person, so please coordinate if your implementation has multiple participants here.

Responding to this e-mail is fine.

Cheers,


> On 7 Jul 2020, at 7:50 am, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> Thanks for running this experiment and presenting the data back to the group.
> 
> Also thanks to the Chrome folk for enabling the disabling flag.
> 
> Cheers
> Lucas
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 21:19 Patrick Meenan, <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry about the delay, just gathered the results.  The full raw results are here.  It looks like the impact dropped quite a bit across the full 25k URLs but looking at individual tests the impact is quite dramatic when it does impact (and it does exactly what we'd expect it to do for those outlier cases).
> 
> The 95th percentile numbers tend to be the more interesting ones and in the data set, reprioritization enabled is the control and disabled is the experiment so positive changes means disabling reprioritization is that much slower.
> 
> Largest Contentful Paint: 4% slower without reprioritization
> Speed Index: 2.75% slower without reprioritization
> Dom Content Loaded: 1.3% faster without reprioritization
> 
> This is pretty much (directionally) what we'd expect since reprioritization boosts the priority of visible images (LPC/Speed Index) above late-body scripts (DCL). It's particularly dramatic for pages that use background images for any part of the page because they are discovered after all other resources and would normally be scheduled after all other scripts and inline images but if they are visible in the viewport the reprioritization helps them load much sooner.
> 
> Looking at a few examples of the extreme cases:
> 
> https://www.thehelm.co/ - (Filmstrip) - The main background image in the interstitial loads at < 10s vs 90s without reprioritization
> https://blog.nerdfactory.ai/ - (Filmstrip) - The background image for the main content loads at <5s vs 70s without reprioritization. No cost to DCL, just prioritized ahead of not-visible images.
> https://events.nuix.com/ - (Filmstrip) - Another hero background image (detecting a theme?) loads at 10s vs 60s
> 
> Looking at a few of the bigger DCL regressions:
> 
> https://oaklandcitychurch.org/ - (Filmstrip) - DCL got much slower (11s -> 33s) as a direct result of the background image moving from 30s to 10s (the pop-up interstitial was delayed along with the scripts that control it).
> 
> For the specific case that most of these tests exposed (background image discovered late by CSS) it is theoretically possible for Chrome to detect the position before making the initial request (since it is only discovered at layout anyway) but that wouldn't help any of the more dynamic cases like when a user scrolls a page or a carousel rotates and what is on screen changes dynamically.
> 
> I'm still of the pretty strong opinion that we need reprioritization but the web won't necessarily break without it and sites (and browsers) may be able to minimize the impact of not being able to reprioritize (though that might involve holding back requests and prioritizing locally like Chrome does for slow HTTP/2 connections).
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> An early read on Yoav's Canary test is that most metrics are neutral but Largest Contentful Paint degrades ~6.8% on average and 12% at the 95th percentile without reprioritization and Speed Index degrades 2.6% on average and 5.4% at the 95th percentile. This is not entirely unexpected because the main use case for reprioritization in Chrome right now is boosting the priority of visible images after layout is done.
> 
> We'll see if it holds after the full test is complete. The early read is from 3,000 of the 25,000 URLs that we are testing (all https hosted on Fastly for simplicity since we know it handles HTTP/2 reprioritization correctly).  The tests are all run at "3G Fast" speeds with desktop pages to maximize the liklihood that there will be time for reprioritization to happen.  I'll provide the full raw data as well as summary results when the test is complete (at least another week, maybe 2). 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:43 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:55 AM Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2020年6月11日(木) 6:46 Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>rg>:
> (Sorry, sent it too soon...)
> 
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Reg: reprioritization benefit I can share some recent data for Chrome.  For the two cases that are currently discussed I'm actually not fully sure about its benefit.
> 
> For the renderer-triggered image reprioritization cases: this is a bit interesting one, we recently found two things:
> - Delaying to start low-prio requests could often work better (partly because of server-side handling) than re-prioritizing while inflight
> - In-lab measurements (tested with top 10k real sites, both on Mobile and Desktop) showed that removing in-flight re-prioritization doesn't impact page load performance a lot
> 
> Let me stress though that testing this with servers that can properly handle reprioritization could change the landscape, and again this isn't really capturing how it affects long-lived request cases, or cases where tabs go foreground & background while loading, so for now I'm not very motivated to remove the reprioritization feature either.
> 
> Hi Kinuko,
> 
> Thank you for sharing your data. I feel a bit sad that reprioritization isn't showing much benefit at the moment. I tend to agree that we are likely to see different results between server implementations and HTTP versions being used. The effectiveness of reprioritization depends on the depth of the send buffer (after prioritization decision is made), at least to certain extent.
> 
> FWIW, I added a flag to turn off Chromium's H2 request prioritization. I believe +Pat Meenan is currently running tests with and without this flag a list of servers we estimate is likely to handle them well.
>  
>  
>  
> I suspect this is maybe because server-side handling is not always perfect and most of requests on the web are short-lived, and this may not be true for the cases where long-running requests matter.  I don't have data for whether may impact background / foreground cases (e.g. Chrome tries to lower priorities when tabs become background)
> 
> For download cases, Chrome always starts a new download with a low priority (even if it has started as a navigation), so reprioritization doesn't happen.
> 
> Kinuko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:21 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:27 PM Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric's download example is a great one for exposing the risks that would come for an implementation that supported prioritization but not reprioritization.
> 
> Take the trivial example of an anchor link that links to a download (say, a 200MB installer of some kind):
> - When the user clicks on the link, the browser assumes it is doing a navigation and issues the request with the "HTML" priority (relatively high, possibly non-incremental
> - When the response starts coming back, it has the content-disposition to download to a file.
> - At this point, the 200MB download will block every other lower-priority request on the same connection (or possibly navigation if it is non-incremental)
> - The user clicks on another page on the same site and gets nothing or a broken experience until the 200MB download completes
> 
> Without reprioritization the browser will effectively have to burn the existing QUIC connection and issue any requests on a new connection (and repeat for each new download).
> 
> Implementing prioritization without reprioritization in this case is worse than having no prioritization support at all.
> 
> Thanks Eric for presenting this case, and Patrick for breaking it down. That does seem like a pretty bad outcome. 
> 
> Is this a good candidate for a test case? IIUC correctly the problem might occur today with HTTP/2 depending on how exclusive priorities are used. I'm curious if browsers can share any more information about what they do already. How does Firefox manage such a resource with it's priority groups?
> 
> Cheers
> Lucas
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kazuho Oku

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/