It makes alot of sense when you think about it. Android has some good clues about what a process is responsible for.
It would be quite interessting to have all the background daemons doing mostly I/O being scheduled on a light core and the heavy ones (UI -> GPU, whatever) on more robust ones.
This is a cargo cult mentality. You're expecting a company to get it right. Simply because they will.
>Android has some good clues about what a process is responsible for.
This is actually already a thing on servers. Or will maintained servers. You set core affinity of running process to the same core that handles the interupts for that task to preserve better cache locality when it comes to handling system calls.
People keep telling me Phones/Desktops/Servers are fundamentally different, but it always seems like they're trying to solve the same problems.
Servers are a different story, we are talking mobile systems here.
> This is a cargo cult mentality. You're expecting a company to get it right. Simply because they will.
Do you want to bet that Google will totally ruin their mobile platform by messing up big time with a new architecture ?
Ok I'm in, how much you got ? :)
I'm talking about the similiarities between the two, and how one can solve the others problems. Creating arbitary divides based on name alone is the core crux the problem I'm attempting to address.