webrtc-stats
webrtc-stats copied to clipboard
w3c
CPU metrics
System, process and tab CPU usage directly affects the performance of WebRTC and WebRTC has ways of adapting depending on available CPU.
While not in direct control of WebRTC, there is a relationship in both directions between WebRTC and CPU usage. This is analogous to WebRTC and bandwidth.
Can we standardize CPU metrics?
What did you have in mind?
We've done some work on sending CPU metrics from the bridge (SFU, MCU, etc) and endpoints. On the client side, we've done this as an additional object in the webrtc-stats.
I am fine with postponing this until after v1 is out.
Just a note for when it is picked up - we'll want to verify this isn't a privacy/fingerprinting issue (may be fine, but we'll want to check with people who are involved)
It would be nice with a 0.0-1.0 value for "how loaded the CPU is", but with multiple processes/tabs, CPU cores and also GPU being utilized I'm not sure it's that simple.
@icydragons Do you have thoughts on this? How do the current APIs present this?
@vr000m I think CPU metrics should be in a new stats object or on the PC object. Unless we get decoding-specific CPU usage.
@henbos @jesup: I know the Battery API was removed because of privacy concerns, so definitely would need a wide review for that. Also what object should we associate this to?
It's such an obvious thing to do, I'm sure there are reasons why https://www.w3.org/standards/techs/performance#w3c_all seems to have failed to do it. Better talk to them before entering the swamp.
This message written from a computer with 6 cores, or 12 if hypercores count.
This is the code we use in Hangouts, but it requires an extension and is only functional on chrome: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/chrome/browser/resources/hangout_services/thunk.js
Which calls into: chrome.system.cpu.getInfo -> https://developer.chrome.com/apps/system_cpu which gives us information about the number of cores, processors, etc.
And we listen for process, tab, etc stats by listening to the chrome process information -> https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/processes#type-Process
@alvestrand That is concerning, is there a representative we could pull in who may know? I agree it seems like it would be an obvious addition.
