<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>CodingClues - Latest Comments in Timers</title><link>http://codingclues.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://codingclues.disqus.com/timers/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:06:29 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Timers</title><link>http://codingclues.eu/2008/timers/#comment-3855749</link><description>Afaik, You're right that there is no time for sleep because of too many interrupts.
&lt;br&gt;The problem is: How to synchronize interrupts? Most interrupts fire at arbitrary times, like "new data from the disk" or "new data on the network interface", some are just maintenance work of some application... if you synchronize all of them to specific intervals in time, the CPU power consumption would indeed decrease, but the CPU speed would decrease at a very rapid rate.
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;I'm no expert at this, you might want to check what the blogosphere has said around Intel's "ntop" tool for Linux. ntop can show what apps/devices wake up the CPU, so it can be optimized.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Sebastian</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:06:29 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
