> Whatabout: > > CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxx I've added this to my .stable list, thanks for pointing it out. Note that I don't send patches to stable until after they are upstream. thanks, -Len > This is a bug fix also existing in older kernels. > > I remember even much newer HW (Intel and AMD) based have higher values > > exported through ACPI _PSS tables as latency. > > I remember values around (50-70us Core 2 Duo?) and 37us on K10. > > I doubt this patch will cause much pain, but being close to values exported > > via ACPI tables on similar HW sounds like a good idea. > > In 2.6.30 (as soon as cpufreq branch is merged) you get that easily from here: > > cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_transition_latency > > 109000 > > I expect my machine's (K8 Dual core) ACPI exported value will be cut down to: > > 20000 > > now? Does your AMD box run acpi-cpufreq and use native MSR access to change P-states? > I don't want to veto this one, but IMO the 20us second value > > should get 100us... Where does 100us come from? thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
