On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:52:06 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:32:54 +0100 (CET) > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a > > > report of recent regressions. > > > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known > > > regressions from 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be > > > listed and let me know (either way). > > > > > > > > > Bug-Entry : > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12152 > > > Subject : Huge wakeups number from i1915 > > > Submitter : Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date : 2008-12-02 16:48 (6 days old) > > > References : > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=122823656702994&w=4 > > > > > > > at least in some of the cases where this has been seen the cause is > > the following: > > The i915 DRM driver used to do polling for completion, busy > > waiting. It moved to be interrupt driven, which is usually better > > for power, but it will show up as more wakeups in powertop.... > > IOW, this is not a regression? I don't know about this specifc case (not enough information) but for the case I described it's not a regression. Going to interrupt driven from busy waiting is an improvement not a regression :) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
