4 ms·

I think all desktop OSs have it wrong. Allowing full APIs to backgrounded apps and no CPU reservation for control apps will ultimately end desktop computing - w

by nailer 4y ago

I think all desktop OSs have it wrong. Allowing full APIs to backgrounded apps and no CPU reservation for control apps will ultimately end desktop computing - we’ll create on iPads because they work.

rbanffy 4y ago
I'm writing this on an old i3 and it feels perfectly fine. It would probably take days to compile a large project like Chrome or LibreOffice, but, as long as I run the make under a nice, I can continue using the computer and the only sign something big is happening will be the CPU fan kicking in.
- nailer 4y ago
  > as long as I run the make under a nice Regular users don't understand CPU quotas. It should be done by default. The current behavior on Windows/Mac/Linux of allowing a program to make the machine uncontrollable is poor.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    This will probably change as we get more cores and performance/efficiency ones. Macs already run a lot of the low-priority tasks on their slow cores leaving the fast ones available for interactive activities. I don't disagree on the current approach though. If I start a, say, long build job from a terminal window, I have control over the resources it can take. If, OTOH, I start a program from the GUI, it's reasonable to assume I want it to have full control, at least while it has the focus. Now, letting the GUI dynamically renice non-focused processes would be very nice.
    - nailer 4y ago
      More cores won’t fix it. Some app will add more processes and use all available CPUs and there’s no reservations. You had it right with nice - phones and tablets and consoles and cars have it right with their techniques. Apps shouldn’t be able to make the system unusable by default.
      - rbanffy 4y ago
        > More cores won’t fix it. By themselves, no, but there are limits to how many cores a workload can keep fed. You'll see declining returns at high core counts (which is one of the reasons we don't have Xeon Phis these days).

by nailer 4y ago

rbanffy 4y ago

I'm writing this on an old i3 and it feels perfectly fine. It would probably take days to compile a large project like Chrome or LibreOffice, but, as long as I run the make under a nice, I can continue using the computer and the only sign something big is happening will be the CPU fan kicking in.

nailer 4y ago
> as long as I run the make under a nice Regular users don't understand CPU quotas. It should be done by default. The current behavior on Windows/Mac/Linux of allowing a program to make the machine uncontrollable is poor.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  This will probably change as we get more cores and performance/efficiency ones. Macs already run a lot of the low-priority tasks on their slow cores leaving the fast ones available for interactive activities. I don't disagree on the current approach though. If I start a, say, long build job from a terminal window, I have control over the resources it can take. If, OTOH, I start a program from the GUI, it's reasonable to assume I want it to have full control, at least while it has the focus. Now, letting the GUI dynamically renice non-focused processes would be very nice.
  - nailer 4y ago
    More cores won’t fix it. Some app will add more processes and use all available CPUs and there’s no reservations. You had it right with nice - phones and tablets and consoles and cars have it right with their techniques. Apps shouldn’t be able to make the system unusable by default.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      > More cores won’t fix it. By themselves, no, but there are limits to how many cores a workload can keep fed. You'll see declining returns at high core counts (which is one of the reasons we don't have Xeon Phis these days).