On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:18:59 -0600 "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:32:46 -0600 > > "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > so use range timers / timer slack for those apps that you do not > > > > trust. That is not a big deal, and solves the issue of timer > > > > wakeups... > > > > > > I not so sure it is that straight forward in practice. End > > > systems integrate a lot of 3rd party software who view > > > performance 1st and have no thought of power. > > > > you know that with the range timers/slack, you can control the > > "rounding" of the timer of the application, right? > > I've not explored user space for this. > > Can on a per-application basis some controlling application cause > timers of a target process to be rounded or is it global? it is actually per thread.. so rather fine grained >Or do you > need to link the new application to use special glib variants (as > described in OLS papers a few years ago)? no you can do it for 100% existing binary > > Your change here does look like something which could be used to > control timers. Don't you still need some dynamic way to set the > fuzz/slack if its globally applied? It seems like you might want > some timers precise and others fuzzy. right now it's prctl() based. We have been looking for a good use case for making it per syscall.. but haven't found a convincing one yet. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
