On 16 October 2012 00:06, Maxim Sobolev <sobo...@freebsd.org> wrote: > I am working on improved version, so that in the absence of @every_second it > would revert to the previous behavior. Even though I seriously doubt that > few thousand additional CPU cycles every second would make any measurable > differences in any practical application.
Please don't assume that "a few thousand CPU cycles every second" translates to "nothing consequential." You have to wake the CPU up when it may not need to be waked up (which takes power and time just to do, before you run anything), all the scheduler stuff and VM code will get run, these consume cycles and power. Remember, CPU cycles doesn't not mean "power consumed" or "time taken." Some of us are becoming to increasingly care about how power efficient the base system is (both in terms of CPU used, wakeups done, code size, etc.) and this is honestly a step backwards in that direction. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
