Mike, I'm with Robert on this one. Not because you're wrong -- you're not. But because most users don't really want to think about this stuff.
I think that if they were asked if they want to enter game mode -- a single choice -- and they can either accept or decline, then users will either accept, or decline. If they really want to maximize smoothness, they'll opt for game mode. If they want to optimize for utility, they'll decline. I really think that's enough decision for most people. Maybe power users would want to dive under the hood at tweak some parameters. But I'm about as power a user as you could imagine -- and this would be good enough for me. Were I also a game addict, perhaps it wouldn't be. But I think most people are willing to make the trade- off -- if I don't want to miss an SMS message right now, I'll settle for the reduced game experience. If I'm not expecting anything, and want a nice game, I'll opt for game mode. On Apr 19, 5:47 pm, mike <enervat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/19/2010 05:37 PM, Robert Green wrote: > > > Mike, > > > The whole issue is that the Sync and IM services are specifically what > > cause lag in games. If a user wants a smooth gaming experience, > > something's gotta go - or it's gotta be squashed way down so that it > > can't use much of the CPU. > > > I'm not saying I know what should stay and what should go. I don't. > > I just know what causes the issue and what would work to provide a > > good experience at the cost of flipping the phone effectively into > > airplane mode but with the ability to receive calls. > > Yes, that's why a solution to this is not as straightforward > as just saying "phone alerts are exempt", because neither you > nor google have any clue if that actually matches users' *actual* > alert prioritization. And it's quite possible that trying to sort > that out lies madness. > > I'm afraid that users really do want to have their cake and > eat it too. Fortuntately Moore's Law is on our side from going > completely crazy. > > Mike > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 7:07 pm, mike<enervat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 04/19/2010 04:56 PM, Robert Green wrote: > > >>> Bob, > > >>> The idea is that an exclusive mode would cater to apps that are never > >>> idle. Games are never idle. They constantly update and draw. There > >>> are other apps that work that way as well and having a more guaranteed > >>> consistent amount of CPU available for those simulations would > >>> probably be very favorable with consumers. I know I'd personally say > >>> "Yes" if a game prompted me to go into an optional game mode during > >>> the duration of play. If you're playing a game, you don't need > >>> background tasks running. All you would need is to receive a phone > >>> call. It is still a phone, after all. :) > > >> I get off the bus right here. At the point that you aren't willing > >> to say that it's not a phone while you're playing a game or whatever > >> this mode is, you're setting yourself up for failure. Why not an IM > >> from your boss wondering if you're working or playing game? What > >> about that alert that comes in from the baby cam that says that > >> the loinfruit is unhappy? > > >> The problem here is that you are presuming to know users' prioritiztion > >> of alerting, etc, based solely on tradition. That is bound to fail and > >> fail and fail as the generations who think of it as being "a phone > >> afterall" > >> dwindle and eventually die out. It isn't a phone. It's a general purpose > >> computer with some telephony functions on it. > > >> So if there is going to be some mode that allows you to drown out > >> *every* other bit of background/alerting that's one thing. But if you're > >> going to start making exceptions -- which I think you must -- you've > >> opened up a much larger problem. > > >> Mike > > >>> If the user is expecting an > >>> email/text/other notification, they could opt not to go into game mode > >>> and the game will have its normal bits of choppiness. It really could > >>> be as simple as that. > > >>> After the exclusive mode is exited, paused services are resumed and > >>> all is happy on the device. > > >>> On Apr 19, 6:28 pm, Bob Kerns<r...@acm.org> wrote: > > >>>> 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 > >>>> 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 > >> 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 > 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
