Prev: Intel x86 memory model question
Next: interrupting for overflow and loop termination
From: Skybuck Flying on 8 Sep 2005 19:49

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> <robertwessel2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126195798.401745.156050(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Skybuck Flying wrote:
> > > > In short, time slice intervals have only a little to do with system
> > > > responsiveness.
> > >
> > > That's where you are 100% wrong, it has everything to do with system
> > > responsiveness.
> > >
> > > 1. Give an application a higher priority and it's threads will get a
> longer
> > > time slice.
> > > 2. Give an application a lower priority and it's threads will get a
> shorter
> > > time slice.
> > >
> > > That's why 1. lags the system when an application gets to much time.
> > > That's why 2. makes an application take very long to complete it's
task.
> >
> >
> > Of course that's not anything like the way it actually works.
>
> You are again 100% wrong. What I described above is *exactly* what
happens.
>
> The threads of the high priority application will get longer time slices.
> The threads of the low priority application will get shorter time slices.

Lol, ok maybe I am wrong and maybe you are right, or maybe we both a little
bit wrong and right... hard to say.

In case you are 100% right the following would happen:

The higher priority application doesn't really get longer time slices, it
gets more time slices.
The lower priority application doesn't really get shorter time slices, it
gets less time slices.

How this impacts the number of contex switches is hard to say... since both
applications contain multiple threads there still needs to be lot's of
contex switching.

The netto result will still be the same. The system becomes laggy unless
both applications are given a lower priority than all other applications.

Bye,
Skybuck.


From: robertwessel2@yahoo.com on 8 Sep 2005 19:47

Skybuck Flying wrote:
> > Of course that's not anything like the way it actually works.
>
> You are again 100% wrong. What I described above is *exactly* what happens.
>
> The threads of the high priority application will get longer time slices.
> The threads of the low priority application will get shorter time slices.
>
> What you describe below is what happens inside a single application.
>
> What I described above is what happens when multiple applications are
> running.
>
> See the difference ?


Some OS's schedule processes and then threads with processes, other
just schedule all the threads in the system (eg. Linux, Windows). Even
those with two level schemes don't generally do what you describe.
About the only CPUs that implement anything like you describe are the
ones that support CPU utilization policies, and even then the
adjustment is really happening between threads of essentially equal
priority.

*sigh* You are simply uneducable, aren't you?

From: Skybuck Flying on 8 Sep 2005 20:26

<robertwessel2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126223265.310158.20350(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
> > > Of course that's not anything like the way it actually works.
> >
> > You are again 100% wrong. What I described above is *exactly* what
happens.
> >
> > The threads of the high priority application will get longer time
slices.
> > The threads of the low priority application will get shorter time
slices.
> >
> > What you describe below is what happens inside a single application.
> >
> > What I described above is what happens when multiple applications are
> > running.
> >
> > See the difference ?
>
>
> Some OS's schedule processes and then threads with processes, other
> just schedule all the threads in the system (eg. Linux, Windows). Even
> those with two level schemes don't generally do what you describe.
> About the only CPUs that implement anything like you describe are the
> ones that support CPU utilization policies, and even then the
> adjustment is really happening between threads of essentially equal
> priority.
>
> *sigh* You are simply uneducable, aren't you?

See my other post ;)

Bye,
Skybuck =D


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Intel x86 memory model question
Next: interrupting for overflow and loop termination