[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: 100% C0 with 2.6.25-rc

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Willies []
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:56 AM
>To: Rafael J. Wysocki
>Cc:; Ingo Molnar; LKML; Thomas
>Gleixner; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Subject: Re: 100% C0 with 2.6.25-rc
>Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 of February 2008, Jan Willies wrote:
>>> Since 2.6.25-rc1 I have a lot of wakeups/s (≈134191,4) and
>spend 100% in C0.
>>> It worked fine with 2.6.24 and commandline nolapic. Without
>nolapic I had 80k
>>> wakeups/s after some time, but not right from the start like now.
>> We have a regression from 2.6.24, apparently interrupts-related.
>After a lot of bisecting I've found the bad commit:
>9b12e18cdc1553de62d931e73443c806347cd974 is first bad commit
>commit 9b12e18cdc1553de62d931e73443c806347cd974
>Author: <>
>Date: Thu Jan 31 17:35:05 2008 -0800
> ACPI: cpuidle: Support C1 idle time accounting
> Show C1 idle time in /sysfs cpuidle interface. C1 idle time may not
> be entirely accurate in all cases. It includes the time spent
> in the interrupt handler after wakeup with "hlt" based C1.
>But, it will
> be accurate with "mwait" based C1.
>Reverting the commit brings my laptop back to C2.

Thanks for the bisect info. I will look at the bad side effects that patch may be having and I should have a patch for you to test later today....

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-22 18:05    [W:0.072 / U:7.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site