Originally posted by aht0
View Post
Fairness is also an increasingly important issue. Edmundson gave an example of Krita, an advanced graphics application. It performs some heavy processing, all contained within a single process. On the other hand, Discord has those 13 processes, many of which will be making heavy use of the CPU "because it is written in Electron". The system's CPU scheduler will see those two applications as 14 opaque processes, not knowing what they correspond to. This means that Krita could get only 1/14 of the available CPU time, even though it represents half of the applications running. Metadata about running applications needs to propagate through the whole software stack to be available to the scheduler, he said.
aht0 yes you are kind of right to say solving problems you created in the first place. Using multi processes can gain program crash resistance it can also make a program unable to restart dependable if all parts of the program are not shut down.
This is more of case solve one problem cause another
1) developers of applications solved one problem like increase applications crash resistance by using multi process then this causes secondary problem that the posix process system written into the posix standard no long is that useful.
2) developer of DE have problem like users want search results to be close to instant. DE developers add background process to perform these tasks now management issues with background tasks come a problem.
aht0 yes its kind of right to say they are attempting to solve a problem they created themselves. This is also missing that this problem comes about because they are implementing features users want and the end result of implementing those features is you need better resource/process management than what is in posix standard so everything works right.
Comment