[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Detection of hibernation wake-up
From:       Sebastian =?iso-8859-1?q?K=FCgler?= <sebas () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-10-22 15:09:41
Message-ID: 200810221709.41988.sebas () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Wednesday 22 October 2008 14:54:54 Guillaume Pothier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:33 AM, David Jarvie <djarvie@kde.org> wrote:
> > Currently, the application calculates the time at which the next alarm is
> > due, sets a QTimer to expire at that time, and waits until the QTimer
> > expires to trigger the alarm. This obviously assumes that the system time
> > doesn't jump unpredictably. If the system time isn't predictable (as
> > indeed seems to be the case), it will have to check every minute whether
> > the next alarm time has been reached.
>
> Waking your program up once per minute doesn't sound like it will have
> any noticeable effect on the energy consumption... I think even once
> per second is not that much compared to other sources of wakeups.
> Just my 2 cents anyway.

Disagree. We should, if it can be prevented, not use such timers at all, it 
consumes energy by causing unnecessary wakeups and procesing power and it's a 
bad example for others. Eventually, someone will have to go about it and fix 
it. The right solution for this kind of cases is a signal reacting to 
something.

The goal for KDE should be 0 wakeups when idle.
-- 
sebas

 http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org |  GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]