On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:25:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:48:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > What that old patch did, was: > > > > > > 1) Make sure that the broadcast device is actually armed at resume. > > > > > > That might cause the HPET to resume proper. > > > > > > 2) Force a max. 3 seconds rearm when the targeted expiry time is > than 10 > > > seconds > > > > > > That might make sure that lower C-States are never entered. > > > > Doh. I lost the other hunk somewhere. Let's try that again... And indeed > > with the other hunk in tow the machine would appear to resume properly. > > So it would be interesting whether that hunk in resume_broadcast() is > sufficient. So far it looks like the answer is yes. Looks to be about 5 seconds slower than acpi-idle in resuming, but I suppose that's not all that surprising ;) > > > > What's the lowest C-State with acpi-idle and what's the lowest one with > > > intel_idle? > > > > acpi_idle > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/desc:ACPI FFH INTEL MWAIT 0x30 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/disable:0 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/latency:100 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/name:C3 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/power:0 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/residency:200 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/time:5677316 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/usage:5920 > > > > intel_idle: > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/desc:MWAIT 0x30 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/disable:0 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/latency:100 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/name:C4-ATM > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/power:0 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/residency:400 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/time:7146705 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/usage:6826 > > Does the machine work, when you limit intel idle to C3, which would then > match acpi idle ? I'm pretty sure I had tested all of these, but I just double checked to make sure. There's no C3 with intel_idle so I limited to C2, but that did not help. Isn't it possible that ACPI C3 is in fact C4? I thought ACPI C-states are always numbered non-sparsely, and in this case ACPI C3 could be anything from C3 to C11 (if the processor actually supported such states obviously). Actually now that I look at the descriptions for the states in sysfs, it says "MWAIT 0x30" for state3 on both drivers, which I presume means it's in fact C4 for both. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC -- 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
