Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Nick Holloway) | Subject | Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug? | Date | 11 Dec 2000 15:45:36 -0000 |
| |
riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) writes: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 stewart@neuron.com 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 process.
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' | Nick.Holloway@pyrites.org.uk // ^ \\ | http://www.pyrites.org.uk/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |