> Process started by BOINC will have priority class of IDLE then newly > created threads by app itself will get NORMAL priority, hence priority of > 4 that Richard sees. No contradictions here IMO. > Aqua devs probably need to change process, not thread, priority if they > don't like what they have now.
I'm already in dialog with the AQUA devs - thank goodness for a project where the devs are active and responsive. I just wanted to confirm the BOINC situation with David. Originally, the AQUA devs hadn't noticed any issues: it was my experience of the slow-down of Jason's hybrid CUDA app that prompted the enquiry. But now that they're looking at it more closely, it may explain why the multiple application threads tend to finish at different times: the single thread with priority 1 will be interrupted for Windows (and BOINC/CUDA) housekeeping far more often than the threads with priority 4. This means that AQUA tasks tend to finish with three cores idle for the last few minutes, and the poor old 'priority 1' thread panting across the line a distant last. At the moment, the BOINC client scheduler can't make use of those idle resources: all cores are released back to BOINC 'en bloc' when the whole task finishes. Releasing individual cores for re-use by BOINC is probably a scheduler request too far, but if thread equality levels the playing field, efficiency overall should improve - the AQUA devs are looking into it. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
