[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: kapm-idled : is this a bug?

    > >> Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two
    > >> idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a
    > >> separate apm idle task has a purpose.
    > >
    > > You can't do that.
    > Sure you can, and it makes perfect sense.

    No. You lost the way to distinguish between real "idle" spend, and
    kapm-idle spend -- they are different, in kapm-idle cpu is slowed down.

    > > Doing it this way is _way_ better for system
    > > stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM
    > > bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal
    > > as it can be.
    > Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in
    > the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist.

    Ha ha. It was that way. Linus saw it was bad so he fixed it. Bugs are
    discovered/fixed anyway, because you get ugly oops. But ugly oops is
    better than even uglier oops that does not go to syslog and that kills
    you machine hard, you see?
    I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
    Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.045 / U:9.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site