[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:0.024 / U:51.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site