On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Janardhan Reddy <annapareddyjanardhanre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1.amarok uses global static instance of threadweaver,and maximum number of > threads to be used is not specified in code anywhere if i am correct. > Does it not consume too much of cpu making the computer slow. Is there a way > to control the cpu used.
Amarok doesn't have any hard limits on the amount of CPU used by ThreadWeaver jobs. Most of the uses of ThreadWeaver are for processes that are IO bound (usually because they access a network or attached device resource) and not CPU bound. The only CPU-bound ThreadWeaver uses in Amarok are the dynamic playlist backend and the automated playlist generator (APG). I think that the dynamic playlist is limited to a single Job, and I know (because I wrote it) that the APG is limited to one Job. And even for both of these, the Job lasts no more than a minute on a slow machine, and is usually considerably faster. So CPU limitations just aren't something we need to worry about most of the time. ThreadWeaver doesn't have any inherent ability to limit the amount of CPU used, other than Weaver::setMaximumNumberOfThreads(). > 2. Is it better to have global static instance of threadweaver or local > instances of threadweaver::weaver . That depends. Use different Weavers if you need different Weaver behavior for different types of jobs. For example, pretend you have Job types JobA, JobB and JobC. If you need a WeaverObserver for all JobCs, and you need to be able to cancel all JobAs at once, then it makes sense to have separate Weavers for the separate Job types. Otherwise, just stick with the global Weaver instance. It's easier to deal with. I actually use Digikam, so if you want to put a git branch up somewhere with your ThreadWeaver work in it, I'll take a look at it. -- Soren Harward _______________________________________________ Amarok mailing list Amarok@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
