The race is on then, we'll see who's the first to market! Cheers :-) /
J
On 16 Sep, 06:44, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Um, 1.6 will do this, and is probably what I would say is the "right" way in
> that the implementation is very closely integrated into the system to
> monitor CPU usage, network usage, wakelock usage, screen usage, etc, etc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Walles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Good point :-), here's the plan:
>
> > I'm writing an app to find out what apps are using the most CPU time
> > (which I hope will correlate with battery drain). It's possible to
> > get a snapshot picture of this by looking at /proc:
>
> >http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~walles/drain-o-meter/trunk/annotate/head...<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Ewalles/drain-o-meter/trunk/annotate/he...>
>
> > A single snapshot picture will however miss apps that start, run for
> > some time and then exit.
>
> > So what I want to do is to take *regular* snapshots. I take the
> > difference between the last two snapshots and add the difference to a
> > process name -> number of ticks Map.
>
> > Snapshotting rules are:
> > * Snapshots should be taken at regular intervals.
> > * The first two snapshots should be taken in quick succession to be
> > able to quickly present the first measurement to the user.
> > * It must be possible for an UI app to look at the result of the
> > snapshotting.
>
> > To get the whole thing going, I'm letting the UI part of the
> > application start the sampler in the background. When the sampling is
> > first started it needs to take two snapshots quickly (see above). The
> > rest of the samples should be taken at longer intervals.
>
> > I first tried to do this using alarms, but I didn't manage to get the
> > "two quick samples first and the rest further apart" behavior with
> > alarms:
> >http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~walles/drain-o-meter/trunk/files/39<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Ewalles/drain-o-meter/trunk/files/39>
>
> > I now have a working implementation with a background service:
> >http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~walles/drain-o-meter/trunk/files/57<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Ewalles/drain-o-meter/trunk/files/57>
>
> > Suggestions on how I should *really* be doing welcome :-).
>
> > Cheers //Johan
>
> > On 9 Sep, 16:47, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Walleswrote:
> > > > I'll use a Service instead of an Alarm and keep it running in the
> > > > background. That way I can keep track of it myself.
>
> > > Please don't. For starters, it won't work, since the service may get
> > > killed off by the user or the system. Also, while the service is in
> > > memory, you are taking up one process' worth of RAM.
>
> > > If you could explain to us what the effect is you are trying to achieve
> > > (versus low-level technical statements, like "not to overwrite an
> > > existing alarm with a new one"), we might be able to suggest alternative
> > > patterns.
>
> > > --
> > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com|
> >http://twitter.com/commonsguy
>
> > > _Android Programming Tutorials_ Version 1.0 In Print!
>
> --
> Dianne Hackborn
> Android framework engineer
> [email protected]
>
> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to
> provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such
> questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and
> answer them.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
