Hi!
> >> Yes, it depends on the device, but we have demonstrated power
> >> savings for two different types of devices using two different
> >> measurement setups performed by two independent groups. Some
> >> of the measurements are available on the website, the second
> >> set should become available "soon" (but we can already say that
> >> for the scenario we measured, the savings are in the same range
> >> as before).
> >
> > The video I seen.... AFAICT the savings are in <10% range?
>
> For the scenario we scripted, yes. But note that we only
> allowed 50% of the packets transmitted to be delayed (a bit).
> If you were to increase the allowed delay or allowed a larger
> fraction of packets to be delayed, you should see larger savings.
>
> > I seen demo on UDP packets... delayed TCP socket write is probably
> > easy, but would API allow delayed TCP connect?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Hmm, but the API needs redoing, anyway, fcntl()?
>
> Depends --- while I like the idea, I did not hear enough to be
> certain that having this feature embedded in such a non-modular
> way was already the consensus (and I do not see a reasonable
> way to change the API this way while maintaining the modularity
> of the current code).
Being modular is not important for small piece of code like
this. Having reasonable interface is...
Pavel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
