On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:11:31 -0800Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Arjan van de Ven> <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?> > You can *directly* throttle the number of wakeups an application> > causes that way to a value you set.> > I thought the point of range timers was to align multiple timers so> they wakeup at the same time, not to throttle individual timers. it works both ways. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology CentreFor development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org_______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
