On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 19:31, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> wrote: > El Sat, 07-08-2010 a las 18:14 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió: > >> So we would have a periodic wakeup? The test would be the amount of >> free memory plus buffers and caches? > > A polled design is clearly inferior to a proper notification system, but > it has the advantage of being simple and not requiring a particular > kernel. Once this is done, switching to a better solution should not > require extensive changes to the UI code. > > BTW, looking at top, it seems that Sugar and other processes wake up > quite frequently when the system is supposed to be completely idle. It > may be background checks for updates, NetworkManager updates or the > presence service. Plus, there are a bunch of cron jobs that run in the > background, inclding the ds-backup and olpc-update. > > All these things drain battery power and cause the UI to become jerky, > so we should try to limit them if possible.
NM is particularly active when there are more than a few APs available, wonder if it would be possible to tune it to group updates in batches. Regards, Tomeu >> > Or, maybe, we could make this a manual process: pop up a notification >> > when memory is short and ask which activity should be closed. >> >> I would just close one of the background activities, the LRU or the biggest >> one. > > +1. > > This, however, makes non-sugarized activities more dangerous to deal > with. One more reason to demand proper sugarization. > > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel