>-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Willies [mailto:jan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:56 AM >To: Rafael J. Wysocki >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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: venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx> >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.... Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
