2010/6/6 <david@xxxxxxx>: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Brian Swetland wrote: > if you could shrink the time awake to 0.01 second per wakeup you would shift > this all up a category (and avoiding the need to wake everything up to > service a timer would help do this) > > this effort very definantly has diminishing returns as you go to larger > sleep periods as the constant standby power draw becomes more and more > dominating. someone mentioned that they were getting the sleep time of > normal systems up past the 1 second mark with the 10 second mark looking > very attainable. that is where you get the most benifit for whatever changes > are needed. getting up to a 2 min sleep time really gives you about all the > benifit that you can get, going from there to 15 min makes very little > difference. > > don't let chasing the best possible sleep time prevent you from considering > options that would be good enough in time, but would drastically reduce the > maintinance effort (as things could be upstreamed more easily), and would be > usable on far more systems. Not to mention the fact that there's nothing fundamental that prevents dynamic PM to reach > 15 min idle. It's a matter of time before we find the tools needed. The amount of work that suspend blockers would require to implement properly in user-space other than Android just doesn't match the power savings. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
