4 ms·

It's true that the software kills the theoretical performance that the hardware makes available. But I actually think this is an indictment of hardware not soft

It's true that the software kills the theoretical performance that the hardware makes available. But I actually think this is an indictment of hardware not software engineers. It's basically "We've created this incredibly difficult problem for you, good luck" from the hardware engineers. How the hell is the OS meant to know whether this thread is going to turn out to be a rendering operation or a logging thread? With these architectures I think often what the management should really look at is: "We currently employ 100 hardware engineers, and 30 software engineers, with this architecture, we're going to need 50 hardware engineers and 500 software engineers. Do we still think this is the right call?"

urthor 4y ago
"How the hell is the OS meant to know whether this thread is going to turn out to be a rendering operation or a logging thread?" Because this problem is incredibly well solved (I believe?). Scheduling priorities in operating systems an enormously well explored topic. Put simply: you must incorporate heterogenous cores into the OS thread scheduler. There's three actors here: Hardware developers. OS developers. End user software engineers. The hardware developers are running into physical constraints. The fix is to shift the prioritisation between the different core types, big little, to the operating system scheduler.