Subject: [SDK / Instruments] Clarification on Runnable & Blocked Time Semantics — Customers Misinterpreting as CPU Usage Hi Apple Developer Technical Support Team, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek urgent clarification on a profiling question that is directly impacting our SDK customers. Context We provide an iOS SDK that is integrated into third-party applications. Our SDK includes a background monitoring thread created via: -[NSObject performSelectorInBackground:withObject:] As documented, threads created through this API carry a default (relatively low) scheduling priority. Inside the thread, we call sleep(1) once per second for periodic idle intervals, and we collect CPU usage metrics using kernel APIs: • task_threads() • thread_info() Both calls involve kernel-level operations and are known to trigger context switches internally. The Core Issue — Customer Misinterpretation When our customers profile their apps using Instruments with "Context Switch Sampling" enabled, they observe that our SDK thread shows a large proportion of time labeled as "Runnable" and "Blocked". A representative example: • Total (wall clock): 4.30 s — 100% • Runnable: 3.06 s — 71.4% ← customers flag this as high CPU usage • Blocked: 1.05 s — 24.5% • Running: 176 ms — 4.1% ⚠️ Our customers are interpreting the "Runnable" time (71.4%) as CPU consumption by our SDK, and are raising concerns that our SDK is degrading their app's performance. We strongly believe this interpretation is incorrect — a thread in the "Runnable" state is merely waiting in the scheduler's ready queue and has NOT been assigned to any CPU core, therefore it should NOT consume any CPU resources. However, we need an official confirmation from Apple to address our customers' concerns definitively. Our Questions Do the time values shown next to "Runnable" and "Blocked" in the Time Profiler call tree represent wall-clock waiting time (i.e., time spent in that state), or actual CPU consumption time? Does a thread in the "Runnable" state consume any CPU resources on the device? We want to confirm clearly: does Runnable time contribute to CPU load or battery drain in any way? Is it correct that the high Runnable time observed is caused by the combination of: a. The low thread scheduling priority assigned by performSelectorInBackground:withObject:, and b. Context switch overhead introduced by the task_threads() and thread_info() kernel calls? Is there any official Apple documentation that explicitly describes the semantics of "Runnable" and "Blocked" time in Instruments, which we could reference when communicating with our customers? An authoritative answer from Apple would allow us to accurately explain the profiling data to our customers and clarify that the high "Runnable" time does NOT represent CPU consumption by our SDK. Thank you very much for your time and support. Best regards

Hi Apple Developer Technical Support Team, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek urgent clarification on a profiling question that is directly impacting our SDK customers. Context We provide an iOS SDK that is integrated into third-party applications. Our SDK includes a background monitoring thread created via: -[NSObject performSelectorInBackground:withObject:] As documented, threads created through this API carry a default (relatively low) scheduling priority. Inside the thread, we call sleep(1) once per second for periodic idle intervals, and we collect CPU usage metrics using kernel APIs: • task_threads() • thread_info() Both calls involve kernel-level operations and are known to trigger context switches internally. The Core Issue — Customer Misinterpretation When our customers profile their apps using Instruments with "Context Switch Sampling" enabled, they observe that our SDK thread shows a large proportion of time labeled as "Runnable" and "Blocked". A representative example: • Total (wall clock): 4.30 s — 100% • Runnable: 3.06 s — 71.4% ← customers flag this as high CPU usage • Blocked: 1.05 s — 24.5% • Running: 176 ms — 4.1% ⚠️ Our customers are interpreting the "Runnable" time (71.4%) as CPU consumption by our SDK, and are raising concerns that our SDK is degrading their app's performance. We strongly believe this interpretation is incorrect — a thread in the "Runnable" state is merely waiting in the scheduler's ready queue and has NOT been assigned to any CPU core, therefore it should NOT consume any CPU resources. However, we need an official confirmation from Apple to address our customers' concerns definitively. Our Questions Do the time values shown next to "Runnable" and "Blocked" in the Time Profiler call tree represent wall-clock waiting time (i.e., time spent in that state), or actual CPU consumption time? Does a thread in the "Runnable" state consume any CPU resources on the device? We want to confirm clearly: does Runnable time contribute to CPU load or battery drain in any way? Is it correct that the high Runnable time observed is caused by the combination of: a. The low thread scheduling priority assigned by performSelectorInBackground:withObject:, and b. Context switch overhead introduced by the task_threads() and thread_info() kernel calls? Is there any official Apple documentation that explicitly describes the semantics of "Runnable" and "Blocked" time in Instruments, which we could reference when communicating with our customers? An authoritative answer from Apple would allow us to accurately explain the profiling data to our customers and clarify that the high "Runnable" time does NOT represent CPU consumption by our SDK. Thank you very much for your time and support. Best regards

Hi Apple Developer Technical Support Team, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek urgent clarification on a profiling question that is directly impacting our SDK customers. Context We provide an iOS SDK that is integrated into third-party applications. Our SDK includes a background monitoring thread created via: -[NSObject performSelectorInBackground:withObject:] As documented, threads created through this API carry a default (relatively low) scheduling priority. Inside the thread, we call sleep(1) once per second for periodic idle intervals, and we collect CPU usage metrics using kernel APIs: • task_threads() • thread_info() Both calls involve kernel-level operations and are known to trigger context switches internally. The Core Issue — Customer Misinterpretation When our customers profile their apps using Instruments with "Context Switch Sampling" enabled, they observe that our SDK thread shows a large proportion of time labeled as "Runnable" and "Blocked". A representative example: • Total (wall clock): 4.30 s — 100% • Runnable: 3.06 s — 71.4% ← customers flag this as high CPU usage • Blocked: 1.05 s — 24.5% • Running: 176 ms — 4.1% ⚠️ Our customers are interpreting the "Runnable" time (71.4%) as CPU consumption by our SDK, and are raising concerns that our SDK is degrading their app's performance. We strongly believe this interpretation is incorrect — a thread in the "Runnable" state is merely waiting in the scheduler's ready queue and has NOT been assigned to any CPU core, therefore it should NOT consume any CPU resources. However, we need an official confirmation from Apple to address our customers' concerns definitively. Our Questions Do the time values shown next to "Runnable" and "Blocked" in the Time Profiler call tree represent wall-clock waiting time (i.e., time spent in that state), or actual CPU consumption time? Does a thread in the "Runnable" state consume any CPU resources on the device? We want to confirm clearly: does Runnable time contribute to CPU load or battery drain in any way? Is it correct that the high Runnable time observed is caused by the combination of: a. The low thread scheduling priority assigned by performSelectorInBackground:withObject:, and b. Context switch overhead introduced by the task_threads() and thread_info() kernel calls? Is there any official Apple documentation that explicitly describes the semantics of "Runnable" and "Blocked" time in Instruments, which we could reference when communicating with our customers? An authoritative answer from Apple would allow us to accurately explain the profiling data to our customers and clarify that the high "Runnable" time does NOT represent CPU consumption by our SDK. Thank you very much for your time and support. Best regards

Hi all, I've hit a reproducible issue where the presence of the SwiftUI instrument in a template prevents any data from being recorded, including from the other instruments in the same template. Removing the SwiftUI instrument immediately restores normal recording. Environment Host: macOS 26.4.1 (25E253), Mac mini Xcode / Instruments 26.4.1 (17E202) Device: iPhone 17, iOS 26.4.2 (23E261) (physical device, USB-attached) Symptom Recording the same app, same device, same session, only varying the template contents: SwiftUI template (as-is) => All lanes empty across the entire recording Same template with the SwiftUI instrument removed => Data collected normally (Time Profiler samples, Hangs, etc.) So it seems not an issue with the SwiftUI lanes specifically being empty — including the SwiftUI instrument appears to silence the entire recording. Steps to reproduce Open Instruments → pick the SwiftUI template (or build a custom template that includes the SwiftUI instrument alongside, e.g., Time Profiler). Target the device, attach to the running app. Record for ~10s, interact with the app. Stop. Result: every lane is empty. Edit the template, remove the SwiftUI instrument, re-record with no other changes. Result: normal data appears in the remaining instruments. Questions Is this a known regression in Instruments 26.4.1 on iOS 26.4.x? Is there a workaround to use the SwiftUI instrument on this OS combo (different Xcode build, runtime flag, entitlement)? Does it work for anyone on iOS 26.4.x + Xcode 26.4.1, or is everyone seeing this? I can file a Feedback if confirmed as a bug — wanted to check here first in case I'm missing a setup step. Thanks!

What about a studio rendering audio interface with airpods max, when linked has a usb-c*thunderbolt's cable. Them can bring Use and Space at utility. +can bring 32 bits dept into sound edit +can bring Audio Spatialisation +and a bunch of codecs to encode ogg capabilties or atmos/dtsX fidelity -since the latency became minimalist at bluetooth 6.0, a think could look forward about cableless capability upforth.