Yo Hal! On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:24:26 -0700 Hal Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hm. I think I get it - and you've just added a pretty powerful
> > reason to eventually pull the refclocks into a separate daemon by
> > telling me I need to get ntpd itself out of the PPS-watching
> > business entirely in order to get rid of that timer.
>
> The reason I want to get rid of the every-second timer is to save
> power when operating on battery with no refclocks.
Saving power is good, but I suspect the extra power is minimal. I
hace USB power meters, so we can measure this.
> If you have a PPS, you have to take an interrupt every second.
No, every 500 millisecond.
> I'm
> not a wizard on that area. It would be interesting to know if you
> can get useful interrupt responses when starting from a power-save
> mode. Similarly, can you wakeup in time to get data from a serial
> port without dropping any characters? It may be that power-save just
> won't happen if you are using refclocks.
Easy to test, when we have a knob to twist. It would depend a lot on the
mode the CPU is in. I always set governor=performance, so I would see no
change in power.
> Moving the PPS processing out of ntpd doesn't change any of that.
True, whether it is on gpsd or ntpd it should be similar power.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
[email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588
pgpvlqTLftZPY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
