Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Venki Pallipadi
Date: Friday, March 28, 2008 - 3:56 pm

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:09:22PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:


David,

I think I figured out the bug...

Can you try the below patch and confirm that it works (over upstream - ignore
the earlier revert patch I sent to you).

Thanks,
Venki

----


Patch to fix huge number of wakeups reported due to recent changes in
processor_idle.c. The problem was that the entry_method determination was
broken due to one of the recent commits (bc71bec91f987) causing
C1 entry to not to go to halt. This should also fix the hang reported here.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10093


Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>

---
 drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c |    4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c	2008-03-28 15:31:13.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c	2008-03-28 15:40:50.000000000 -0700
@@ -848,6 +848,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info
 		/* all processors need to support C1 */
 		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].type = ACPI_STATE_C1;
 		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].valid = 1;
+		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].entry_method = ACPI_CSTATE_HALT;
 	}
 	/* the C0 state only exists as a filler in our array */
 	pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C0].valid = 1;
@@ -960,6 +961,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info
 				 cx.address);
 		}
 
+		if (cx.type == ACPI_STATE_C1) {
+			cx.valid = 1;
+		}
 
 		obj = &(element->package.elements[2]);
 		if (obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Sat Mar 22, 1:24 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Andrew Morton, (Sat Mar 22, 5:35 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Alexey Starikovskiy, (Sun Mar 23, 11:04 am)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 12:01 pm)
RE: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri Mar 28, 12:13 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 12:44 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri Mar 28, 1:30 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 2:09 pm)
RE: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri Mar 28, 2:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 3:09 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri Mar 28, 3:56 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Mar 28, 4:01 pm)
RE: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri Mar 28, 4:07 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 4:36 pm)
RE: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri Mar 28, 4:51 pm)
Re: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, David Brownell, (Fri Mar 28, 5:15 pm)
RE: 2.6.25 regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon Mar 31, 11:34 am)