Re: RBTree implementation and thread structure

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM, André Braga <[email protected]> wrote:
>  I'm going to state the obvious here, but... Heuristics fail, otherwise
>  they wouldn't be heuristics. I still have the strongest conviction
>  that interactivity should be flagged according to the code path being
>  followed, and not some assumption based on time before blocking/CPU
>  cycles used. This way the decision can be truly fine-grained and with
>  zero code overhead on the scheduler itself. IMHO touching parts of the
>  Input Server and App Server (and perhaps a couple others) to add a
>  single flag to the semaphores created by them is a very small price to
>  pay to have perfect interactivity information. Thank God we have the
>  code for the whole enchilada (and notice how the Unices go to the
>  craziest lengths to detect and boost X11-like behaviour -- I'm
>  affirming we're in the very privileged position of *not* needing this
>  at all).

Right, I'm not disputing that :) I'm just saying that I don't see any
meaningful way of evaluating "scheduler X results in better
responsiveness than scheduler Y" programmatically :)


Regards,

Rene

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone