Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756362AbaDLLhE (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:37:04 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:42162 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756291AbaDLLhB (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:37:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:36:53 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Christian Grothoff Cc: Alejandra Morales , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Cryogenic: Enabling Power-Aware Applications on Linux Message-ID: <20140412113653.GA10806@Nokia-N900> References: <9E3F9C2076C45D4783F09B90D5BE77CE1AEF7A@BADWLRZ-SWMBX13.ads.mwn.de> <20140411101926.GA27234@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <534838E8.10005@grothoff.org> <20140411220517.GA1203@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <53487FE7.2040604@grothoff.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53487FE7.2040604@grothoff.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/