I have enabled ACPI on my Dell GX1 (Pentium 3/500MHZ) machine and disabled
APM, however, what are the benefits of using ACPI over APM?
I am using Kernel 2.6.7
I see ACPI eats up an IRQ and does not share it:
$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 64997374 XT-PIC timer
1: 10 XT-PIC i8042
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
5: 2625 XT-PIC Crystal audio controller
8: 1 XT-PIC rtc
9: 0 XT-PIC acpi
10: 277489 XT-PIC ide2
11: 11465050 XT-PIC ide4, ide5, eth0, eth1, eth2, eth3
12: 58 XT-PIC i8042
14: 307536 XT-PIC ide0
15: 53 XT-PIC ide1
NMI: 0
LOC: 65007290
ERR: 0
MIS: 0
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> I have enabled ACPI on my Dell GX1 (Pentium 3/500MHZ) machine and
> disabled APM, however, what are the benefits of using ACPI over APM?
>
> I am using Kernel 2.6.7
>
> I see ACPI eats up an IRQ and does not share it:
>
> $ cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0
> 0: 64997374 XT-PIC timer
> 1: 10 XT-PIC i8042
> 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
> 5: 2625 XT-PIC Crystal audio controller
> 8: 1 XT-PIC rtc
> 9: 0 XT-PIC acpi
> 10: 277489 XT-PIC ide2
> 11: 11465050 XT-PIC ide4, ide5, eth0, eth1, eth2, eth3
> 12: 58 XT-PIC i8042
> 14: 307536 XT-PIC ide0
> 15: 53 XT-PIC ide1
> NMI: 0
> LOC: 65007290
> ERR: 0
> MIS: 0
>
Yep, IRQ 11 is a bit crowded...
I was just about to ask a similar question...
How do I have a better interrupt table (no or less shared intrerupts) with ACPI?
My system (just rebooted) says:
$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 1434691 IO-APIC-edge timer
1: 5158 IO-APIC-edge i8042
8: 2 IO-APIC-edge rtc
9: 0 IO-APIC-level acpi
14: 8097 IO-APIC-edge ide0
15: 959 IO-APIC-edge ide1
19: 105118 IO-APIC-level nvidia
20: 17455 IO-APIC-level ehci_hcd, eth0, NVidia nForce2
21: 0 IO-APIC-level ohci_hcd
22: 16156 IO-APIC-level ohci_hcd
NMI: 0
LOC: 1434624
ERR: 0
MIS: 0
The "problem" here might be IRQ 20 when I am using my scanner@4800dpi (USB2.0, Epson GT-X700) writing the output via NFS (through eth0). Will test the numbers some other time.
Kalin.
--
||///_ o *****************************
||//'_/> WWW: http://ThinRope.net/
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 13:10 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> I have enabled ACPI on my Dell GX1 (Pentium 3/500MHZ) machine and disabled
> APM, however, what are the benefits of using ACPI over APM?
Well, I can't tell for sure... ACPI is supposed to offer better power
management and battery usage for laptops, while being more flexible than
APM.
The truth is that on my laptop, both work equally well but since ACPI is
still less mature than APM, I chose to use ACPI in order to test it and
helping in its future development.
>
> I am using Kernel 2.6.7
>
> I see ACPI eats up an IRQ and does not share it:
I wouldn't mind about IRQ's...
Is there any performance degradation when using ACPI as it uses IRQ 9,
therefore forcing more devices to share IRQ's thus possibly decreasing
performance?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Felipe Alfaro
Solana
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:27 PM
To: Justin Piszcz
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ACPI vs. APM - Which is better for desktop and why?
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 13:10 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> I have enabled ACPI on my Dell GX1 (Pentium 3/500MHZ) machine and
disabled
> APM, however, what are the benefits of using ACPI over APM?
Well, I can't tell for sure... ACPI is supposed to offer better power
management and battery usage for laptops, while being more flexible than
APM.
The truth is that on my laptop, both work equally well but since ACPI is
still less mature than APM, I chose to use ACPI in order to test it and
helping in its future development.
>
> I am using Kernel 2.6.7
>
> I see ACPI eats up an IRQ and does not share it:
I wouldn't mind about IRQ's...