Problem with XP scheduler?
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: tanix on 8 Jan 2010 06:01 In article <uABytlCkKHA.4500(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"tanix" <tanix(a)mongo.net> wrote in message >news:hi6dfc$4at$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In *nix the OS is designed as a call based system. >> So, you are pretty much guaranteed that certain sequence >> of events happens ininterruptingly, and that is precisely why >> you never see these kinds of screwups and the entire desktop >> refreshes that may take seconds on a desktop with all sorts >> of items, especially while your system is busy up the hilt. >> > >You're telling that Unix is running poorly designed GUI Well, windoes GUI is much better, at least in terms of how efficiently screen space is utilized. No questions about that one. > with enormous overhead Sorry, I am not familiar enough with it to argue. Does not feel like ENORMOUS overhead at least from the response time. > and lacks adaptive thread prioritisation, allowing background >threads to compromise GUI responsiveness? Well, ALL I am saying is the system has problems that sometimes cause very unpleasant things and in rare cases even screwups that could not be easily undone in a heavy load situations when you have multiple processes and windows running. I personally, had situations a few times when things like this happened and it was not clear if the entire file directory subtree was moved to some totally unexpected place and it took quite some time to verify what exactly happened. When you have millions of files in your directory tree, things may get really nasty if you move some subtree inadvertently. Why does windows redraws the desktop to begin with which may take seconds to complete and you have to wait till it completes and can not do anything meanwhile? And in some cases, just as it redrew the whole desktop and you click on some + in directory tree, it redraws it again. And it has been doing it since the day one of windows. >If you like that better, you can change Windows settings to disable GUI >prioritization. In XP, go to system >properties->Advanced->Performance->Advanced->Processor scheduling, set to >Background. This also will increase dispatcher time slice. I would not mind doing it except I am not sure what are going to be all sorts of cosequences. That is another nasty thing related documentation. To my opinion, every dialog and every tab of it needs to have a context help either via F1 or a help button that describes every setting in sufficient detail to make an intelligent decision on how some setting is going to impact what. Especially, when we do things you suggest. I simply have no idea what are going to be results of changing this setting and I dot like to change any settings unless I know all the consequences of it. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 8 Jan 2010 06:04 In article <4kjdk5hjlina35l979onjvheulush39mt0(a)4ax.com>, Tim Roberts <timr(a)probo.com> wrote: >tanix(a)mongo.net (tanix) wrote: >>>Don't tell me that you can visually detect whether redraing is done in the >>>mouse ISR. After all, the screen image is only refreshed 60 times per >>>second. >> >>Why is there a redrawing of your entire desktop to begin with? >Your screen gets redrawn from the frame buffer 60 times a second the entire >time the computer is on. Otherwise, your screen would go black. I am not talking about SCREEN refresh. I am talking about DESKTOP redrwawing. >>Just click on + in the explorer to expand a directory, and your >>desktop redraws at EXACTLY that time. > >No, it doesn't. Sorry, I am just saying things that I actually saw happening in real life situations. Enough. > First, your reflexes are not nearly good enough to detect >exactly when that click happens. User interface events take a virtual >eternity as far as the CPU is concerned. Second, because of screen >refresh, any changes in the frame buffer won't be visible to you for 1/60 >second anyway. A 3 GHz CPU can execute 180,000,000 instructions in between >refreshes, and there will typically be 4 task switches in that time. > >>ANY clue? > >Apparently not. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 8 Jan 2010 06:13 In article <31e77eda-82a7-4b4e-90d9-4d4590747a23(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Leo Davidson <leonudeldavidson(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On Jan 8, 4:48=A0am, ta...(a)mongo.net (tanix) wrote: >> The problem is windows is a message based system and not >> a call based system. So, they inevitably have these kinds of issues >> because of async nature of message based architecture. > >Messages are not inherently asynchronous. SendMessage is, >semantically, the same as a synchronous remote procedure call. Some >messages are posted (async, PostMessage), some are sent (sync, >SendMessage) depending on what makes sense. True. But SendMessage is not a recommended way to process messages and should be used with caution. PostMessage is a generally accepted way of doing almost anything you need to be done. Let the OS decide which things are to be processed when, and I generally agree with this. >You have very strong opinions on things and keep calling people morons >when they correct you, yet you appear to not have the first clue about >what you are talking about. I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. >I was hoping this thread would die out now that it's the new year. I >figured it was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to make it into one of >the lists, like "Dumbest Thread of 2000-2009" or something, within the >few remaining days of the year, but here we still are... Well, what do you suppose people of your kind are to be called? You don't like donkeys? How about the mouth foaming intolerant idiots that can not even figure out the most basic principle of Usenet: If you don't like something, do not read it, do not follow up on it, and just forget about it. Is it THAT difficult to comprehend to intellectual giants of YOUR caliber? I started this thread becasue of very specific issue I had, and to tell you the truth, to this day, I am not convinced that this is not an OS issue. Firefox does not use any kernel mode drivers as I was told. Therefore, it can not possibly lock up the entire box as badly as I see it happening. Even the latest version of ff, 3.5.7, that was released yesterday, exhibits the same behavior. Sure, if we throw a couple of days of work at it, we MAY be able to figure out exactly what screws up. Except I'd have to drop all the other things on my list. Can not be done. Fintally, what is YOUR problem? Can you find something MORE creative to do in your life besides whining about something that has nothing to do with YOUR trip? :--} I usually call these kinds of trips pathetic. Sounds good? :--} -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: Stefan Kuhr on 8 Jan 2010 15:47 Tanix, On 1/8/2010 4:59 PM, tanix wrote: >> <snip> >> Why don't you apply your own standards to yourself then and shut up, >> then? > > :--} > > Sick as it gets. > > Enough. > Yes, you are so right. Enough. Fo a while it seemed to me like you are playing devil's advocate and I simply found this thread a bit entertaining. But you seem to refuse every advice that people give to you and the longer this thread gets, the more stupid your statements get. A naive statement such as "SendMessage is not a recommended way to process messages" should prove this to everyone. In addition to your ignorance, you practically insulted every regular in this newsgroup. Enough. Welcome to my killfile. You will probably respond to this message and insult me, but I will not be able to read it, unless I stumble again on this thread via google groups or similar. -- S
From: Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] on 13 Jan 2010 08:34
>"tanix" <tanix(a)mongo.net> wrote > Why does windows redraws the desktop to begin with > which may take seconds to complete and you have to wait till it > completes and can not do anything meanwhile? And in some cases, > just as it redrew the whole desktop and you click on some + > in directory tree, it redraws it again. You are now mentioning this in every post, so I will give you it from my perspective. Most of your posts have been very vague along the lines of "Can't you see that Windows is terrible and all kinds of bad things happen?". So I will have to guess what you mean. I don't think you're talking about the screen buffer. I think you're talking about the desktop window being invalidated and therefore receiving a WM_PAINT message, and possibly a WM_ERASEBKGND message. Then it has to redraw itself. I have never seen this happen when you click the "+" in the folders pane in Windows Explorer. Certainly, it is not the usual case. There is some other condition causing it, almost certainly unrelated to the OS. > And it has been doing it since the day one of windows. This cannot be true, because Windows did not even have Windows Explorer for thousands of days since its inception. I think we are all growing tired of blanket statements like this. More likely, ut has been doing it since the day after you installed some random software from the Internet and expected that the OS would behave according to the extreme and ill thought out standards you expect, regardless of what you throw at it. You may have a point about message-based UI and I will let others respond to that. Paul |