linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200803281715.19973.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:15:19 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, "Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

On Friday 28 March 2008, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> 100% C0 is not real reading. The problem behind that is there is no wat
> to measure exact C1 idle time with halt based C1s. So, we always used to
> report 0 time in acpi and that's what is reported by powertop.
> This should be fixed in future, as we now export approx time (even
> though not exact) in cpuidle and powertop is about to start using it.

I just pulled the latest powertop SVN and see it's smarter now.
It says over 90% in C1 (doing normal desktop stuff), with nasty
IRQ rates but that's the fault of silly desktop code.  ;)

- Dave

--
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/