We Keep Coding

JavaScript: trying to create a well-behaved background job, but it gets too little time to run while rest of the system is mostly idle?

In a browser, I am trying to make a well-behaved background job like this:
function run() {
var system = new System();
setInterval(function() { system.step(); }, 0);
}
It doesn't matter what that System object is or what the step function does [except it needs to interact with the UI, in my case, update a canvas to run Conway's Game of Life in the background], the activity is performed slowly and I want it to run faster. But I already specified no wait time in the setInterval, and yet, when I check the profiling tool in Chrome it tells me the whole thing is 80% idle:
Is there a way to make it do less idle time and perform my job more quickly on a best effort basis? Or do I have to make my own infinite loop and then somehow yield back time to the event loop on a regular basis?
UPDATE: It was proposed to use requestIdleCallback, and doing that makes it actually worse. The activity is noticably slower, even if the profiling data isn't very obvious about it, but indeed the idle time has increased:
UPDATE: It was then proposed to use requestAnimationFrame, and I find that once again the slowness and idleness is the same as the requestIdleCallback method, and both run at about half the speed that I get from the standard setInterval.
PS: I have updated all the timings to be comparable, all three now timing about 10 seconds of the same code running. I had the suspicion that perhaps the recursive re-scheduling might be the cause for the greater slowness, but I ruled that out, as the recursive setTimeout call is about the same speed as the setInterval method, and both are about twice as fast as these new request*Callback methods.
I did find a viable solution for what I'm doing in practice, and I will provide my own answer later, but will wait for a moment longer.
OK, unless somebody comes with another answer this here would be my FINAL UPDATE: I have once again measured all 4 options and measured the elapsed time to complete a reasonable chunk of work. The results are here:
setTimeout - 31.056 s
setInterval - 23.424 s
requestIdleCallback - 68.149 s
requestAnimationFrame - 68.177 s
Which provides objective data to my impression above that the two new methods with request* will perform worse.
I also have my own practical solution which allows me to complete the same amount of work in 55 ms (0.055 s), i.e., > 500 times faster, and still be relatively well behaved. Will report on that in a while. But wonder what anybody else can figure out here?

I think this is really dependent on what exactly you are trying to achieve though.
For example, you could initialize your web-worker on loading the page and make it run the background-job, if need be, then communicate the progress or status of the job to the main thread of your browser. If you don't like the use of post-message for communication between the threads, consider user Comlink
Web worker
Comlink
However, if the background job you intend to do isn't something worth a web-worker. You could use the requestIdleCallback API. I think it fits perfectly with what you mentioned here since you can already make it recursive. You would not need a timer anymore and the browser can help you schedule the task in such a way that it doesn't affect the rendering of your page (by keeping everything with 60fps).
Something like =>
function run() {
// whatever you want to keep doing
requestIdleCallback(run)
}
You can read more about requestIdleCallback on MDN.

OK, I really am not trying to prevent others to get the bounty, but as you can see from the details I added to my question, none of these methods allow high rate execution of the callback.
In principle the setInterval is the most efficient way to do it, as we already do not need to re-schedule the next call back all the time. But it is a small difference only. Notably requestIdleCallback and requestAnimationFrame are the worst when you want to be rapidly called back.
So, what needs to be done is instead of executing only a tiny amount of work and then expect to be called back quickly, we need to batch up more work. Problem is we don't know exactly how much work we should batch up before it is too much. That can probably in most cases be figured out with trial and error.
Dynamically one might take timing probes to find out how quickly we are being called back again and preemptively exit the work (loop of some kind) when the time between the call-backs is expired.

Javascript for loop never ends (10^10 itenerations)

I have a 'for' loop wich have to loop around 10000000000 times so that i get the disered result.
However, it ends up all the time freezing the browser ...
It's not like that 'for' is working infinitly but as i told, it's very long
Is there some way to solve my problem with javascript or i should use another language ?

In a compiled language and if you do virtually nothing in the loop, you can achieve 1,000,000,000 iterations a second on a desktop processor. So your loop would take 10 seconds.
If your Javascript environment is interpreted (and not compiled), you probably won't get more than 10,000,000 iterations and your loop will take 1000 seconds (16 minutes).
If you additionally have somewhat more expensive operations within the loop (and Javascript is likely to allocate memory for simple operations, which is expensive), you're in the order of 1,000,000 iterations per seconds and your code takes 10,000 seconds (close to 3 hours).
You might want to think about a better algorithm...

The issue that you are seeing is because javascript is single threaded in the browser. Your for loop is holding on to the thread for the entire time that it is running. The problem is that this thread also handles interactions with the interface. There may be other possibilities, but the two ways that I can think of to fix this would be:
Use a Web Worker (docs), this solution will not work for older browsers though
If possible, break your loop into smaller chunks that can be ran using setTimeout. After each chunk is processed, use setTimeout to schedule the next chunk to be processed in say 100ms. You will need to play with the numbers, but that should free up the thread so that it can respond to events. This will make the calculation take longer but should make it so the browser doesn't freeze up.

Don't do it. To run this kind of Javascript code in a browser makes no sense. If you really want to do this on the client side, you should consider writing some kind of browser extension, where you have more control on the CPU and local storage.
You might want to separate that loop in smaller chunks and run them sequentially, with an appropriate progress system. If you are talking about a loop, a multithreaded system will not help you, assuming the result n+1 is based on the n result.
Consider using a server-side script with a queue or job mechanism and just push notifications to the client. As Teemu said, the time (even in a fast paced situation) is huge.

Is it possible to implement a sleep() in javascript?

This is a duplicate question. It has been asked many times before, with dozens of answers, some of them rated very highly. Unfortunately, as far as I have been able to tell, every single one of those answers is a variant of "You don't, it's bad programming practice. Use setTimeout instead".
This is Not. An. Answer!
There are some use cases - rare but they exist - where you might want the entire page's execution to halt for a second or two, and I find it very frustrating that nobody seems interested in answering the actual question. (have a look at the comments here for some examples).
I am sure it's possible to halt javascript executing; for instance, if I use firebug to insert a breakpoint, then the execution stops when it hits that point. So, firebug can do it. Is there some way that the program can halt execution of the current thread until some timeout occurs?
Just some thoughts: How does firebug do it? Is there some browser-specific method? Is it possible to trigger a stop, without specifying a timeout to continue? Could I programmatically insert a breakpoint, or remove one? Could I get a closure representing the current thread to pass to setTimeout?
I don't have a specific use case in mind; I am just looking for advise from someone who knows the browser/javascript design better than me, as to how this can most effectively be done.
So far, I have come up with only one solution:
endtime=Date.now()+1000;
while(Date.now() < endtime)
$.ajax(window.location.origin,{'async':false});
This appears to work. The problem with it is, it makes hundreds of excess requests. I would replace the location.origin with something like mysite/sleep?delay=X and write a server side script to provide the delay, which would but it down to one, but the whole thing still seems really hacky. There must be a better way to do this! How does the jquery.ajax function manage it? Or is there a busy-wait buried in it somewhere?
The following do not answer the question and will be downvoted, just because I am sick of seeing pages of answers that completely ignore the question in their rush to rant on the evils of sleep:
Sleep is evil, and you should do anything it takes to avoid needing it.
Refactor your code so that you can use setTimeout to delay execution.
Busy-wait (because it doesn't stop execution for the duration of the sleep).
Refactor your code to use deferred/promise semantics.

You should never do this, it's a bad idea...
... because the browser has been, traditionally, single-threaded. Sleeping freezes the UI as well as the script.
However, now that we have web workers and the like, that's not the case. You probably don't need a sleep, but having a worker busy-wait won't freeze the UI. Depending on just how much you want to freeze a particular thread, I've seen people use:
endtime = Date.now()+1000;
while (Date.now() < endtime)
or, curiously (this was in an older but corporate-sponsored analytics library):
endtime = new Date().getTime() + 1000;
while (new Date().getTime() < endtime)
which is probably slower. If you're running a busy wait, that doesn't necessarily matter, and allocating objects probably just burns memory and GC time.
Code using promises or timeouts tends to be more modular, but harder to read (especially when you first learn async techniques). That's not an excuse for not using it, as there are definite advantages, but maybe you need everything to stay synchronous for some reason.
If you have a debugger running and want some chunk of code to pause itself (very useful when you have a bunch of nested callbacks), you can use:
function foo() {
do.someStuff();
debugger;
do.otherStuff();
}
The browser should pause execution at the debugger statement. The debugger can almost always pause execution, because it is in control of the VM running the code; it can just tell the VM to stop running, and that ought to happen. You can't get quite to that level from a script, but if you take source as text (perhaps from a require.js plugin), you can modify it on the fly to include debugger statements, thus "programmatically inserting breakpoints." Bear in mind that they will only take effect when the debugger is already open, though.
To capture the state of a "thread" and persist it for later use, you may want to look into some of the more complicated functional programming concepts, particularly monads. These allow you to wrap a start value in a chain of functions, which modify it as they go, but always in the same way. You could either keep simple state (in some object), or record and reproduce everything the "thread" may have done by wrapping functions in functions. There will be performance implications, but you can pick up the last function later and call it, and you should be able to reproduce everything the thread may have done.
Those are all fairly complicated and specific-use solutions to avoid just deferring things idiomatically, but if you hypothetically need them, they could be useful.

No, it is not possible to implement a sleep in javascript in the traditional sense, as it is a single-threaded event based model. The act of sleeping this thread will lock up the browser it is running in and the user is presented with a message either telling them the browser has stopped responding (IE) or allowing them to abort the currently running code (Firefox).

Asynchronous programming in javascript (NOT AJAX)

Is it possibly to do things asynchronously in javascript (AJAX aside)? For example, to iterate multiple arrays at the same time. How is it done? A brief example would be nice. Searching for this was hard, due to all the ajax pollution, which is not what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance.

Use web Workers. But remember that it is a very new feature and not all browsers are fully supported.

You could use setTimeout.
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array1); reportDone(1); }, 0);
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array2); reportDone(2); }, 0);
I'm not sure how concurrent it will be, but it is an asynchronous programming model.

As stated by Grumdrig you can write code like this:
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array1); reportDone(1); }, 0);
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array2); reportDone(2); }, 0);
But it will still not run concurrently. Here's a general idea of what happens after such timeouts are called:
Any code after the setTimeout calls will be run immediately, including returns to calling functions.
If there are other timers in queue that are at or past their delay or interval time, they will be executed one at a time.
While any timer is running, another might hit its interval/delay time, but it will not be run until the last one is finished.
Some browsers give priority to events fired from user interaction such as onclick and onmousemove, in which case the functions attached to those events will execute at the expense of timer accuracy.
This will continue until there is an opening (no previously called timers or event handlers requesting execution). Only then will the functions in the example code be run. Again one at a time, with the first one likely but not certainly executing first. Also, I'm venturing a guess that some browsers might impose a minimum delay time, which would make any timers set with a delay of 0 milliseconds be run even later than expected.
Obviously there is no performance advantage to running code like this. In every case it will make things take longer to complete. However in cases where a single task is taking so long it freezes the browser (and possibly trips "Script is taking too long" browser warnings), it can be helpful to break it up into smaller faster executing pieces that run sequentially after some delay time, thus giving the browser some time to breathe.
Web Workers have been mentioned, and if you are not concerned about IE compatibility then you can use them for true concurrency. However there are some severe limitations on their use imposed for security reasons. For one they cannot interact with the DOM in any way, meaning any changes to the page still must be done synchronously. Also all data passed to and from workers is serialized in transit, meaning true Javascript objects cannot be used. That being said, for intensive data processing, Web Workers are probably a better solution than breaking a function up into multiple timer delayed tasks.

One new development in this field is HTML5 Web Workers.

JavaScript is normally single threaded; you cannot do several things at once. If your JavaScript code is too slow, you will need to offload the work. The new way is to use web workers, as others have noted. The old way is often to use AJAX and do the work on the server instead. (Either with web workers or with AJAX, the arrays would have to be serialized and the result deserialized)

I have to agree with MooGoo, i also wonder why you would run through such a big array in one go.
There's an extension to JavaScript called StratifiedJS, it allows you do multiple things at once as long as they're asynchronous. Also, webworkers are an awkward "solution" that just make things more complicated, also, they don't work in IE.
In StratifiedJS you could just write.
waitfor {
// do something long lasting here...
}
and {
// do something else at the same time...
}
// and when you get here, both are done

Prevent long running javascript from locking up browser

I have JavaScript which performs a whole lot of calculations as well as reading/writing values from/to the DOM. The page is huge so this often ends up locking the browser for up to a minute (sometimes longer with IE) with 100% CPU usage.
Are there any resources on optimising JavaScript to prevent this from happening (all I can find is how to turn off Firefox's long running script warning)?

if you can turn your calculation algorithm into something which can be called iteratively, you could release control back the browser at frequent intervals by using setTimeout with a short timeout value.
For example, something like this...
function doCalculation()
{
//do your thing for a short time
//figure out how complete you are
var percent_complete=....
return percent_complete;
}
function pump()
{
var percent_complete=doCalculation();
//maybe update a progress meter here!
//carry on pumping?
if (percent_complete<100)
{
setTimeout(pump, 50);
}
}
//start the calculation
pump();

Use timeouts.
By putting the content of your loop(s) into separate functions, and calling them from setTimeout() with a timeout of 50 or so, the javascript will yield control of the thread and come back some time later, allowing the UI to get a look-in.
There's a good workthrough here.

I had blogged about in-browser performance some time ago, but let me summarize the ones related to the DOM for you here.
Update the DOM as infrequently as possible. Make your changes to in-memory DOM objects and append them only once to the DOM.
Use innerHTML. It's faster than DOM methods in most browsers.
Use event delegation instead of regular event handling.
Know which calls are expensive, and avoid them. For example, in jQuery, $("div.className") will be more expensive than $("#someId").
Then there are some related to JavaScript itself:
Loop as little as possible. If you have one function that collects DOM nodes, and another that processes them, you are looping twice. Instead, pass an anonymous function to the function that collects the nodes, and process the nodes as your are collecting them.
Use native functionality when possible. For example, forEach iterators.
Use setTimeout to let the browser breathe once in a while.
For expensive functions that have idempotent outputs, cache the results so that you don't have to recompute it.
There's some more on my blog (link above).

This is still a little bit bleeding edge, but Firefox 3.5 has these things called Web Workers, I'm not sure about their support in other browsers though.
Mr. Resig has an article on them here: http://ejohn.org/blog/web-workers/
And the Simulated Annealing is probably the simplest example of it, if you'll notice the spinning Firefox logo does not freeze up, when the worker threads are doing their requests (thus not freezing the browser).

You can try performing long running calculations in threads (see JavaScript and Threads), although they aren't very portable.
You may also try using some Javascript profiler to find performance bottlenecks. Firebug supports profiling javascript.

My experience is that DOM manipulation, especially in IE, is much more of an issue for performance than "core" JavaScript (looping, etc.).
If you are building nodes, it is much faster in IE to do so by building an HTML string and then setting innerHTML on a container than by using DOM methods like createElement/appendChild.

You could try shortening the code by
$(xmlDoc).find("Object").each(function(arg1) {
(function(arg1_received) {
setTimeout(function(arg1_received_reached) {
//your stuff with the arg1_received_reached goes here
}(arg1_received), 0)
})(arg1)
}(this));
or for "for" loops try
for (var i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i = i + 1) {
(function(arg1_received) {
setTimeout(function(arg1_received_reached) {
//your stuff with the arg1_received_reached goes here
}(arg1_received), 0)
})(arg1_to_send)
}
I had the same problem and my customers was reporting this as "Kill page" error. But now I juz got a best solution for that. :)