Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759585AbYC2APr (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:15:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759463AbYC2APY (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:15:24 -0400 Received: from smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.93]:44295 "HELO smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1759454AbYC2APW (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:15:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=21VZlGbJ2zqjoC/Qd4ZsOGOSJZWzTUNznfQz77jDzMJaEl+6ixsIvz3zkHTYMZ21osZQ4qGJeN2I1WzYeuLKffzolw9BOR9kuCoUki65uJsjtAxJPd9Fke4KSJ3RxyvJZRDnl57uVfHv2gFK0eGLW+i3W7FpLqPUJpYMiIfjo7M= ; X-YMail-OSG: ljDUVtcVM1lqZ7nu2NU6SLN6_wwNO_O6FsSYlgQsxJQ7Izp8rXB1yX25P1MjCbuFRr7JoNxtBw-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Subject: Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:15:19 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: "Andrew Morton" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "Len Brown" References: <20080322202454.9D69DCC0EF@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <200803281636.04029.david-b@pacbell.net> <924EFEDD5F540B4284297C4DC59F3DEEC83EF5@orsmsx423.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <924EFEDD5F540B4284297C4DC59F3DEEC83EF5@orsmsx423.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803281715.19973.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 849 Lines: 18 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/