[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: disable ASPM
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Johannes Stezenbach <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:44:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >
>> > Heh, this whole patch and thread was started because Jussi tested
>> > ath5k with  pcie_aspm=force (on a pre PCIE 1.1 device (?)) . I have
>> > been trying to explain all along why this is a terrible idea to the
>> > point we should probably just remove that code from the kernel. Hence
>> > my side rants and explanations to justify my reasonings.
>> Well, there's two things here. If you use force then you might get
>> inappropriate ASPM. But if your BIOS enables ASPM on an old device, then
>> booting *without* CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM will leave it turned on, and booting
>> *with* CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM will turn it off. The Kconfig description is
>> confusing - reality is that CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM enables logic that allows
>> the kernel to modify the BIOS default, and disabling it makes the
>> assumption that your BIOS did something sensible.
> Does CONFIG_PCIEASPM provide a way for the user to modifiy
> the settings at runtime?

You can tune ASPM settings at runtime, regardless of CONFIG_PCIEASPM. See:

> I have a Samsung N130 netbook which has a BIOS setting
> called "CPU Power Saving Mode".  When enabled it activates
> ASPM L1 and L0s for the ethernet chip (Realtek RTL8102e, 100Mbit)
> and the PCIE bridge (with the BIOS setting off it's just L1).
> The result is that the ethernet througput is reduced to 25Mbit/s.
> (The BIOS setting does not activa L0s for the Atheros AR9285 WLAN.)
> 99,9% of the time I want to enjoy the power savings,
> but occationally I have to transfer some bulk data and would
> like to switch the setting for a few minutes.
> Or, well, ideally I'd like to have power savings _and_ performance
> at the same time without any manual intervention.  I'm not sure
> if this is a quirk of the N130 or if ASPM L0s always causes
> performance degradation?

L0s is not going to buy you much gains, getting at least L1 will
however. L0s is just a further enhancement. I recommend you test by
enabling L1 and L0s, check how longer your battery lasts and then test
again with just L1. Then test without both L1 and L0s.

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: 2010-06-22 21:39    [W:0.082 / U:4.796 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site