[Dev] Tizen 3.0 proposal for applications launch

Schaufler, Casey casey.schaufler at intel.com
Mon Oct 14 15:34:19 GMT 2013


> -----Original Message-----
> From: kexipl at gmail.com [mailto:kexipl at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jaroslaw
> Staniek
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 8:22 AM
> To: youngik.cho at samsung.com
> Cc: Schaufler, Casey; Jussi Laako; dev at lists.tizen.org
> Subject: Re: [Dev] Tizen 3.0 proposal for applications launch
> 
> On 14 October 2013 14:51, YOUNG IK CHO <youngik.cho at samsung.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The easy and, to my mind correct, solution is to let the kernel take
> > > care of setting the security attributes and throw out the whole
> > > "launcher" thing. I have *never* been presented evidence that
> > > launchers actually improve performance in the final deployed
> > > configuration.
> > > But, that's a separate argument.
> >
> > Yes, it is a separete argument but I will just suggest the brief number.
> >
> > On the TIZEN 2.1 (previous version) mobile profile, it gives the huge
> difference. My test app shows:
> >
> > - launch without preloading : 950msec
> >
> > - launch with proper preloading : 630msec

Great! Numbers are very helpful.

> > When my colleague analized the performance bottle neck, he found that
> around 100~200msec is consumed on the dynamic loader. I know there are
> several solutions like prelink or readlink but preloading works better. For
> WebApp, wrt_launchpad performs pre-initialization heavily and it has much
> more number than Core/Osp App in terms of performance gain.
> 
> Interesting topic.
> I'd like to add, in addition to web runtime, both Qt Quick and (real) EFL apps
> benefit from preloading. Qt Quick has two engines in place (JavaScript and
> QML) -- these, if preloaded and waiting for actual program code, give great
> speedup. Preloading at this level was successfully used in MeeGo Harmattan.

But without numbers to back up these claims we can't
use them to make decisions. 5 msec improvement would not
be convincing, whereas 200 probably is.

> In general, we get faster startups in any runtime that employs costly (in terms
> of initialization) engines (web, JavaScript, QML, Python, whatever). Of course
> that comes at the memory cost.

The issue there is going to be how much the overhead of preloading
impacts the overall system performance. I have not seen an analysis
of that. 

> 
> --
> regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek
>  Kexi & Calligra & KDE | http://calligra.org/kexi | http://kde.org  Qt for Tizen |
> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Tizen  Qt Certified Specialist |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek


More information about the Dev mailing list