Performance Analysis.To answer the efficiency question, we conduct a comparative analysis between AIOS employing FIFO scheduling and a non-scheduled approach, wherein the aforementioned three agents run concurrently. In the non-scheduled setting, the three agents are executed following a predefined sequential order: Math Agent, Narrative Agent, and Rec Agent. We employ two metrics for assessing temporal efficiency: waiting time (the interval from agent request submission to commencement) and turnaround time (the duration from agent request submission to completion). As each agent will send multiple requests to the LLM, the waiting time and turnaround time of each agent are calculated as the average of waiting time and turnaround time of all its sent requests, respectively. To mitigate randomness, we execute these three agents, both with and without scheduling, in five separate trials to report the results. As shown in Table 5, the non-scheduled approach exhibits good performance for agents earlier in the sequence, but at the expense of extended waiting time and turnaround time for agents later in the sequence. Conversely, AIOS's scheduling mechanism efficiently regulates both waiting time and turnaround time, a benefit that becomes particularly evident for agent requests submitted later by agents, especially when LLM is large. This suggests the importance of our scheduling to accommodate parallel operations of multiple agents.