[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
    Date (Rik van Riel) writes:
    > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 wrote:
    > [snip whine]
    > > I've consistently re-produced this on my Dell Latitude CS laptop. I'm
    > > wondering if this will reduce battery life since the CPU is constantly
    > > being loaded instead of properly idled.
    > What do you suppose the 'idled' in 'kapm-idled' stands for?

    We know it was an attempt to stop people complaining about the fact that
    "kapm" was hogging the CPU. Looks like it doesn't work.

    At the time, I had a look at the kernel source, and came to the conclusion
    that there was no easy way for the cpu accounting in "do_process_times()"
    to automatically assign ticks from a particular process to the idle

    However, would it be possible for apm_cpu_idle() to periodically assign
    the values for per_cpu_*time for the kernel thread to the idle process?
    This isn't a performance critical part of the kernel, and would lead to
    less false reports (as above).

    `O O' |
    // ^ \\ |
    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:0.023 / U:8.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site