On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Feb 2015, at 01:55, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sven,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There is some timer thread between the image and the vm that ticks every
>> millisecond, that is the cause. I don't know what it does but it is
>> apparently needed.
>>
>> Anyway, that is how I understood it from Igor and Eliot, long ago.
>>
>> So basically, the VM is always slightly busy.
>>
>> Yet the VM is always slightly busy with the heartbeat thread, but this is
>> very cheap. The actual idle cost comes form the idle loop in the background
>> process that sends relinquishProcessorForMicroseconds:, which is a primitive
>> that eventually calls the select system call. This is the source of the
>> cost.
>
> Can we change something about that ?
> Maybe just as an experiment to prove your point ?
What do you think halving or doubling the argument to
relinquishProcessorForMicroseconds: should do if this is the major source of
overhead? Processor usage at idle should be closely inversely proportional
right?
>
>>> On 09 Feb 2015, at 21:11, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have an installation where a pharo powered hardware is used in a closed
>>> case. Over time that collects quite some heat. One reason for this is that
>>> the pharo vm is taking approx. 6% CPU all the time. The only thing that
>>> happens is network/sockets. I suspended the ui thread in the image but on
>>> this platform it doesn't help.
>>> Are there any tweaks to lower the polling and the activity of the image/vm
>>> even more?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Norbert
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>
>
