Hi Sekerob

I'll post what you say to the boinc_alpha email list and link to this thread. I can see what you say in the preferences pane of two public release Boinc versions.

But I'm not sure it should say switch between projects instead of switch between applications. My public release Boinc on a dual-core often has apps from two different projects running simultaneously. I think think that switching apps is the only way it can be done to ensure the switch happens straight after app checkpoints and without allowing another core(s) to wait idle until its app is also ready for a switch.

The second 'between' is (correctly) missing from

root/trunk/boinc/clientgui/DlgAdvPreferencesBase.cpp, as per [trac]changeset:19414[/trac]

But root/branches/boinc_core_release_6_10/clientgui/DlgAdvPreferencesBase.cpp is still back at [trac]changeset:19322[/trac].

Before the next "Recommended" promotion, they really ought to audit the codebase for errors like that. They have a wonderful tool for keeping track of every jot and tittle, but it's being let down by the human factor when it comes to migrating changes from trunk to branch.

On the other point,

Switch between main projects every xxx

reads fine in english English, but even the 'main' is possibly superfluous: 'Switch between projects every xxx' would be enough.

But I'm not sure it should say switch between projects instead of switch between applications. My public release Boinc on a dual-core often has apps from two different projects running simultaneously. I think think that switching apps is the only way it can be done to ensure the switch happens straight after app checkpoints and without allowing another core(s) to wait idle until its app is also ready for a switch.

Been thinking about this, because I mainly run multicores (5 or 8 cores, counting CUDA). But I think 'project' is still good.

The control that this label is describing is to do with routine preemption/rotation, to maintain resource share between projects. These switches do always involve a change of project: you'll never see an application from one project switched out, and another application from the same project taking its place, under TSI control.

You will occasionally see intra-project switches, but only because of deadline pressure: those aren't affected by the 'switch interval'.

So Sekerob's second point would also be a good idea.

More correctly, it is an opportunity to switch between tasks. It is not always a switch between projects, but sometimes it will merely be a switch between tasks in the same project. This will occur if one task starts or stops needing extra CPU time because of deadline trouble.

---

BOINC WIKI

Not quite. John is suggesting that deadline-pressure intra-project switches are also subject to the task switch interval. I think that's on the wish-list: to have a distinction between 'hard' deadline pressure, requiring an immediate switch, and a 'softer' version, allowing for a more relaxed switch at the next interval opportunity.

I wasn't aware that had been implemented.

There's a very real discussion to be had about the best way to handle multiple tasks all under deadline pressure, but I don't think it has anything to do with TSI - the "Switch between applications between every". If you set that value to 1 minute or 1440 minutes, does it make the slightest difference to your beta tasks?