[openbeos] Re: Article on BeOS vs MacOS X
- From: guillaume.maillard@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:25:12 +0100
Hi,
Toosl to instrument the linux kernel are provided with low latencie patch.
It would be very difficult to bench the BeOS kernel without modifying it AMHA,
Anyway, the linux scheduler allow you to use static ('RT') priorities in order
to
to have problems with the dynamic priorities. But nobody use it... :(
Guillaume
Mark-Jan Bastian
<markjan@xxxxxxxxx> To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Guillaume
Maillard/DR-SUR/BE/PHILIPS)
openbeos-bounce@fre Subject: [openbeos] Re:
Article on BeOS vs MacOS X
elists.org
Classification:
12/19/01 11:54 PM
Please respond to
openbeos
Hi Jim :)
Yup, you got it right - it's the responsiveness, or 'GUI latency'
that I was wondering about. A CPU load indicator only shows how much
time was left for the idle thread after all the other processes
were done, and doesn't say anything about the scheduling granularity or
responsiveness of various subsystems of the OS. A 80% pulse could
mean 70% of CPU time was allocated in one big chunk for some strange
reason, after which a (huge) 2% overhead for a context switch was
needed, and then 8% was needed for processing I/O and doing a display
update.
Software that logs context switches in the kernel and then a
client which graphically shows what was blocking on what, together with
visualisation of the managment of the scheduling queue's would be very
educational to show the differences. Does anyone know of this kind of
software being developed on various platforms ?
thanks,
Mark-Jan
Other related posts:
