Posted Aug 9, 2010 15:23 UTC (Mon) by caliloo (subscriber, #50055)
In reply to: Whack-a-droid by ldarby
Parent article: Whack-a-droid
What I meant, is that they should only care about energy if it becomes a problem, and when it becomes a problem, it shouldn't bring the system down.
I fully agree with the policy of Naming and Shaming. My point though, is that instead of bringing the whole system down with it, the "bad" app should be ruthlessly killed/throttled by the OS before it becomes a problem for other apps that are well mannered and the platform as a whole.
Make the parallel with memory management. If an app is buggy/badly written, it shouldn't destroy the system it sits on. Managing the energy at OS level means that a buggy app is contained in it's own realm (with say, a max energy budget), and only brings that down with it. Then people can really start Naming and Shaming. It makes pinpointing and fixing problems easier.
On the other hand, if you keep the power top approach, you have to have educated users (scarce resource) pinpointing problems, after the system has crashed already once. (people don't look for problems they don't see).
Energy accounting like in Powertop is good, but not enough. You need to be able to the capacity to constrain it, limit its use. You don't want the worry of a 3rd party buggy app going into a infinite active loop or other similar things when you sell a phone.
So yes ! Name and Shame ! But also try hard to limit the damage those bad apps can do.