On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 20:34 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> int main() {
>> int i;
>> while (1)
>> i++;
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> We already know it's really rare on an embedded system you would get
> this bad of an app. However, if you assume that you might have this 1 in
> a million app, couldn't we just have a watch dog that identifies and
> kills it. It would also let the user know what happened of course.
> Killing the app seems pretty reasonable to me.
However, it is not uncommon to run into apps that poll once (or
several times) a second for IO, or have other behavior that's not
*quite* as bad as constantly running but still ends up having a
significant impact on battery life. Polling even on "reasonable"
intervals can make a huge difference in overall battery life while not
having a very visible impact on device performance when the device is
being used interactively. opportunistic suspend helps a lot here.
We see this in the field with real apps on real devices -- there's a
lot of not so great code out there.
Sometimes those apps are apps that, despite being badly written, do
things users want. Thus both reducing the impact of these bad apps
and educating users and developers about the apps being bad for their
battery life is worthwhile.
Brian
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
