From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261842AbVGUTBg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:01:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261845AbVGUTBg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:01:36 -0400 Received: from pne-smtpout2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.159]:19629 "EHLO pne-smtpout2-sn1.fre.skanova.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261842AbVGUTBg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:01:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:01:20 +0200 From: Voluspa To: Guillaume Chazarain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.13-rc3 Battery times at 100/250/1000 Hz = Zero difference Message-Id: <20050721210120.10fcb54e.lista1@telia.com> In-Reply-To: <3d8471ca05072111494b45ffe8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050721200448.5c4a2ea0.lista1@telia.com> <3d8471ca05072111494b45ffe8@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:49:59 +0200 Guillaume Chazarain wrote: > 2005/7/21, Voluspa : > > > > 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 --