Well, after looking at your code, my suggestion for advice would be: "Do no evil!" :=)
When I implemented something like this on Symbolics Lisp Machines back in the 1980's, I made the scheduling boost for UI actions be for a limited period of time. Perhaps something like that is going on here? I did this, because I found that there would occasionally be some bit of code or other that would do something in a UI thread (typically the mouse-handling thread) that would consume however much CPU was available, while waiting for the INTERESTING things to do to be computed by another thread. And an unlimited priority boost in the UI could tend to make the UI very difficult to debug, as well. So I had a macro that could be wrapped around various components of UI code, that would boost the priority of the UI thread. It would boost it for a maximum period of time, after which it would fall back to normal. It would ALSO boost it for a *minimum* period of time. The idea being that if you'd just done user interaction, then perhaps completing the work implied by that interaction would also be of interest to the user. The equivalent here would be to boost priority for any incoming events on the main thread, up through some number of scheduler quanta. This all worked very well, but wasn't a panacea. The real fix was usually to write the application better. Another factor to figure in here is scheduling quanta. When the foreground "breaths", it allows the background to run. There will always be a minimum amount of time the scheduler will allocate to run anything it does decide to run. Otherwise, you'd waste too much time switching back and forth! Anyway, I do agree with Robert Green that giving the scheduler explicit information to aid it in policy decisions would be a good thing. You still have to consider how to handle 'exclusive mode" -- do you shut out non-foreground tasks entirely, even when the foreground is idle? Because you may then be blocking the foreground for a scheduling quantum? On Apr 19, 3:32 pm, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote: > We were told that, as of Android 1.6, background processes were put in a > Linux process scheduling class that limited how much CPU they would use. > A few weeks ago, I ran a benchmark test that seemed to validate this claim. > > I have run more tests, and I am no longer confident in my earlier > conclusion. I can get a background process to significantly impact the > foreground process, more than would seem to be possible if the > background process was, indeed, CPU-limited. > > Details, including sample code, can be found in the issue I opened that > was promptly closed: > > http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=7844 > > Clearly, the failed issue was my fault, for not running around screaming > about bugs in Android and not jumping to conclusions. > > Anyway, if anyone else has any ideas on how we can prove whether > background processes are CPU-limited -- and if so, how come that's not > helping much -- please respond to this thread or shoot me an email > off-list if you prefer. > > And, I apologize to anyone who took my prior advice regarding this CPU > utilization, as it looks like I screwed up big-time on that analysis. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
