[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071108180739.GA5062@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:07:39 -0800
From: Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-mm1 breaks C-state support on Intel T7200 x86_64
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:19:44PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> (Sorry for not reporting this sooner - I haven't been running off battery
> much in the last 3 weeks, so I didn't notice it till now...)
>
> Dell Latitude D820 laptop, T7200 Core2 Duo CPU, x86_64 kernel.
>
> As reported by 'powertop' on a basically idle machine:
>
> 2.6.23-mm1:
>
> Cn Avg residency P-states (frequencies)
> C0 (cpu running) (100.0%) 2.00 Ghz 0.8%
> C1 0.0ms ( 0.0%) 1.67 Ghz 0.0%
> C2 0.0ms ( 0.0%) 1333 Mhz 0.0%
> C3 0.0ms ( 0.0%) 1000 Mhz 99.2%
>
> 2.6.23-rc8-mm2:
>
> Cn Avg residency P-states (frequencies)
> C0 (cpu running) ( 0.3%) 2.00 Ghz 0.0%
> C1 0.0ms ( 0.0%) 1.67 Ghz 0.0%
> C2 0.0ms ( 0.0%) 1333 Mhz 0.0%
> C3 31.5ms (99.7%) 1000 Mhz 100.0%
>
> In addition, the ACPI power estimate reported about 25 watts for 23-mm1,
> but only 21 watts for -rc8-mm2, a significant regression.
well, thats because you burn less watts if you get into C3.
>
> I bisected this down to this set of patches:
>
> pm-qos-infrastructure-and-interface.patch
> pm-qos-infrastructure-and-interface-fix.patch
> pm-qos-infrastructure-and-interface-vs-git-acpi.patch
> pm-qos-infrastructure-and-interface-vs-git-acpi-2.patch
> latencyc-use-qos-infrastructure.patch
yipes! I'll look at it right away. It looks like an integration issue
with CPU-IDLE patches (those control the C-state entry). I'll get it
fixed up.
>
> The patch says:
>
> To register the default pm_qos target for the specific parameter, the
> process must open one of /dev/[cpu_dma_latency, network_latency,
> network_throughput]
>
> As long as the device node is held open that process has a registered
> requirement on the parameter. The name of the requirement is
> "process_<PID>" derived from the current->pid from within the open system
> call.
>
> I shouldn't have to have a process open a /dev/file, write a number, and then
> stay around forever so the file doesn't close in order to get the same behavior
> I was getting by default before. What needs to happen to get this to not
> be a behavior regression/change?
>
you won't have such a process (at least I highly doubt you do) I need
to fix this. Thanks for taking the time to bisect it and reporting it to me!
--mgross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists