2010/6/5 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:39:44 -0700 > Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > For example if the Adobe Flash player puts a timer every 10 >> > milliseconds (yes it does that), and you give it a 3.99 seconds >> > range, it will fire its timers every 4 seconds.... unless other >> > activity happens independently, at which point it'll align with >> > that instead. >> > >> >> If you do that what you are delivering is nowhere close to what the >> app asked for. > > yeah it feels a little bit suspended > >> You don't need range timers for this, you could just as >> well add 4 seconds to all normal timers. > > .. with the difference that with range timers, you naturally align with > other activity, so if there's system level activity, the AVERAGE service > the app gets is better by a LOT than just adding 4 seconds always. > > but you knew that.... just doesn't help your case. So you are saying it is safe to use range timers to radically change the requested timer interval because it does not actually get to the value that you changed it so. But you are also saying that this will allow the system to stay idle for that long. Something does not add up. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
