Re: 2.6.13-rc3 Battery times at 100/250/1000 Hz = Zero difference

Voluspa
2005-07-21T19:01:36Z

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:49:59 +0200 Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> 2005/7/21, Voluspa <lista1@telia.com>:
> >
> > 2h48m at 100 HZ
> > 2h48m at 250 HZ
> > 2h47m at 1000 HZ
>
> Now, what would be interesting is to see if the lack of differences
> comes from the fact that the processor has enough time to sleep,
> not enough time, or simply it does not matter.
>
> That is, is it a best case or a worst case ?

Those words swished above my head. I'd need serious hand-holding to
conduct any further (meaningful) tests.

>
> > #!/bin/sh
> > touch time-hz-start
> > while (true) do
> > touch time-hz-end
> > sleep 1m
> > done
>
> Why this ?
> Why not simply nothing ?
> A computer can be idle for more than 1 minute ;-)

I had other things to do than sit with a stopwatch in my hand staring at
a black screen :-) Also, 1 minute is a resonable comparison level.

Mvh
Mats Johannesson
--