User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Aug 16, 2010 8:17 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
In reply to: Whack-a-droid by caliloo
Parent article: Whack-a-droid

The analogy is nice but has a number of problems.

It is true that today one application cannot instantly bring the whole system down by locking up the CPU or by corrupting memory, however today by default one application can still exhaust memory or CPU. Surprise, surprise, energy "management" is not lagging behind but in the *exact same state* already today! Actually not that a big surprise since energy use is more or less a consequence of CPU use.

So the "bounded energy budget" you are describing goes further than today's default CPU or memory management. And it would still not prevent one application from (slowly) draining the battery out.

One last word about the intimate relation between CPU and energy: you could imagine that policing energy is actually not required, policing CPU being enough. Just rename "wakelocks" to "CPUlocks" and stop the scheduler when no CPUlock is grabbed. Then suspend on a timeout as usual. This is simplified but you get the idea: energy is not a "first-class" citizen like memory or CPU.

(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds