[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081208125938.GB31976@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:59:38 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12152] Huge wakeups number from i1915
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 08:28:07AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 8 of December 2008, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On dim, 2008-12-07 at 15:12 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > > > at least in some of the cases where this has been seen the cause
> > > is
> > > > > the following:
> > > > > The i915 DRM driver used to do polling for completion, busy
> > > > > waiting. It moved to be interrupt driven, which is usually better
> > > > > for power, but it will show up as more wakeups in powertop....
> > > >
> > > > IOW, this is not a regression?
> > >
> > > I don't know about this specifc case (not enough information) but for
> > > the case I described it's not a regression. Going to interrupt driven
> > > from busy waiting is an improvement not a regression :)
> >
> > Well, several thousand or more interrupts really seems like a
> > regression :). But it seems that's the same thing as the “IRQ
> > spinning” (there was a thread on dri-devel about that).
> >
> > It seems fixed with a patch from Matthew Garrett applied to
> > drm-intel/for-airlied but I don't think this has been applied to Linus
> > master.
>
> Any pointers to the patch, please?
Doesn't ring any bells for me...
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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