[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0942db0804281439j492ab98fmf80e5ab669b6c9e1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:39:30 -0700
From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: "Daniel Klaffenbach" <danielklaffenbach@...il.com>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Pallipadi, Venkatesh
<venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Daniel Klaffenbach [mailto:danielklaffenbach@...il.com]
>
> >Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
> >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
> >Cc: Len Brown; Linux Kernel Mailing List
> >Subject: Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says
> >120K wakeups/sec
> >
>
>
> >Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >> Did C1, C2 work fine with 2.6.24?
> >> Can you send me the full dmesg when it is failing to enter
> >C1, C2 with
> >> latest git + patch.
> >> Output of
> >> #grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/*
> >> And also attach the acpidump output (pmtools package here
> >> http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php)
> >No, C1/C2 did not seem to work with 2.6.24 - at least powertop
> >reported 99,9%
> >C0 usage. It was the same behavior as after applying the wakeup patch.
> >However in 2.6.25 and 2.6.25-git11 C1/C2 worked correctly and
> >C2 showed up in
> >pt. But after applying your patch to 2.6.25-git11 they did not:
> >
> >git11:
> >PowerTOP version 1.9 (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
> >Cn Avg residency P-states (frequencies)
> >C0 (cpu running) ( 9,4%) 1,80 Ghz 100,0%
> >C1 0,0ms ( 0,0%) 1,60 Ghz 0,0%
> >C2 0,4ms (90,6%) 800 Mhz 0,0%
> >Wakeups-from-idle per second : 9051,0 interval: 5,0s
> >
> >git11 with wakeup-patch:
> >PowerTOP version 1.9 (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
> >Cn Avg residency P-states (frequencies)
> >C0 (cpu running) (99,9%) 1,80 Ghz 100,0%
> >C1 0,0ms ( 0,0%) 1,60 Ghz 0,0%
> >C2 0,2ms ( 0,1%) 800 Mhz 0,0%
> >Wakeups-from-idle per second : 59,8 interval: 10,0s
> >
> >In both cases the system was idle. I've uploaded the files you wanted:
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11.txt
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11
> >_wakeuppatch.txt
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11.txt
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11_w
> akeuppatch.txt
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/nx6125_acpidump.out
> >
> >If there is anything else I can do for debugging this issue
> >please let me
> >know.
> >
>
> With git11+wakeup patch, things seems to be working fine as per
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11_wakeupp
> atch.txt
>
> CPU is spending most of the time in C3 state. Looks like there is some
> problem with
> powertop reporting here. I know there were some changes to this area in
> powertop.
> Can you try the latest powertop version from svn
> (http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/download.php) and see
> whether the issue is fixed.
I have the same laptop. Powertop (as I'd last tested it) misreports C3
as C2 -- the laptop (nx6125) does not support C2 according to
$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/C000/power
active state: C0
max_cstate: C8
bus master activity: 00000000
maximum allowed latency: 2000 usec
states:
C1: type[C1] promotion[--] demotion[--]
latency[000] usage[21566331] duration[00000000000000000000]
C2: <not supported>
C3: type[C3] promotion[--] demotion[--]
latency[010] usage[20968443] duration[00000000000478095079]
I sent a patch for powertop (
http://www.bughost.org/pipermail/power/2008-February/001306.html ),
but as far as I can see it hasn't been picked up. (Perhaps it's wrong
or incomplete, dunno -- Arjan never replied.) [goes and pulls svn...]
Powertop SVN head (rev 290) still has the problem.
--
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