Waste of CPU Power by polling events?

On 2010-11-23, at 1:23 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:

> On 22.11.2010 22:08, Guido Stepken wrote:
>> Need additional:
>>
>> isOnMouseOverEvent
>> isMouseGestureEvent
>> isTouchGestureEvent
> You could try checking out how the iOS code does support for complex events.
> It's of course somewhat apple-specific, but hey, would be nice to have the same image-side representation and handling of touch-based events if possible.

Apple is very very notification &event callback oriented in their iOS platform. It sleeps until you touch, then you get a touch event, you process and go back to sleep. Heck if your startup time takes too many seconds Apple nails you.

For Squeak on iOS I take the touch data place on a queue and signals the event semaphore. When the squeak image polls for the event we
turn the touch data into a complex event and pass it back, then is processed by the Smalltalk code to turn into synthetic mouse events. (or something).

For keyboard entry, we take the key input data and turn into synthetic keystroke events, and again signal the semaphore and put on a queue for later when
the Smalltalk code wakes up and calls getnextevent to see what's up.

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned the other issue is that the polling loop also deals with doing the morphic redrawing so it runs a cycle of doing I think it is
50 iterations a second.

For WikiServer which doesn't show a squeak UI I could cut that back to doing a cycle every second or so.

Oh and yet one more thing, the clock tick is yet another issue, some platforms assume they can run an interrupt 1000 a second (or more) to ensure the VM is responsive to Delay being correctly woken up to the microsecond. "PS here I am over simplify the issue & complexity of the issue" but on underpowered hardware the issues of how ioRelinquishProcessorForMicroseconds and the millisecond timer work become messy issues in relationship to CPU usage.

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================

In Hydra, i merged the heartbeat and delay timeout logic into single
routine, which were running in high-priority thread.
It simply picks the nearest possible time to wait (sleep) - either
heartbeat cycle delay, or scheduled Delay timeout,
then signals VM to interrupt and handle delay or do regular event
processing using ioHandleEvents().

What is good in Windows, that there are special event mask for
WaitForMultipleEvents() function,
which could put a thread in wait till keyboard/mouse input available.
In that way, on Windows, VM could avoid frequent interrupts to for
polling events, and instead use waiting thread(s),
and interrupt only if some event signaled.

FreeBSD also introduced a kernel events, so instead of polling, one
could simply wait for I/O activity (like file, socket etc). Not sure
about mouse/keyboard input. I'm not sure, but think i heard linux
kernel also integrated that recently.

On 27 November 2010 00:40, John M McIntosh

<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Eliot, I had looked at turn off the heartbeat when we did the nanosleep, then turned it back on.  The problem was actually trying to figure out if
> it did any good since the cost of  pausing/restarting the heartbeat task was high. I think first we have to quantify the costs. This is difficult to do on desktop
> machines since they are so fast, so I was working with an iPod touch which is 1000x (wild guess number) times slower.
> I'm also unsure of the pattern for when the ioRelinquishProcessorForMicroseconds is called and for how long. Further to that we do attempt to calculate the next wake up time, but sometime it's in the past, so why is ioRelinquishProcessorForMicroseconds being called? Even if we sleep then how long and what wakes us up early?
> On 2010-11-26, at 8:39 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
> Yes, we need to change this, but I think one has to change the background process and/or nothing to run behavior.  In the VW VM the VM disables the heartbeat and enters some blocking call when there's nothing to do.  Squeak runs the background process which calls a primitive that sleeps for a short time.  The former is much better.  If a delay is active as the VM does to sleep it schedules a wakeup event or supplies a timeout so that it blocks until input is available or the next delay.
> We could still keep the background process and do something similar to VW, disabling the heartbeat until after the relinquish, and factoring the delay into the relinquish timeout.
> Also the heartbeat already has facilities to change its frequency, so one could modify things to slow down the heartbeat, again ensuring that it ticks before the next delay expiry.
> What approach (not necessarily from the above) appeals to you John?
> best
> Eliot
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
> John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
>
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

 
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Eliot Miranda wrote:

(Pine can't quote your mail, sorry.)

"The problem with linux is that the pthreads implementation doesn't allow a normal user-level process to create high-priroity threads so that as
soon as the Vm starts to spin doing some computation the heartbeat thread is shut-out and if the spinning computation only interrupted when a delay
expires it'll never get interrupted because it is blocking the very thread that would signal the delay.  So until linux's pthreads implementation
supports multiple priorities we're stuck with hacks like the interval timer based itimer in the linux Cog VMs."

What about keeping the priority of the heartbeat thread at user-level and decreasing the other VM threads' priority slighly?

Levente