From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754203AbXLBACV (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:02:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753033AbXLBACN (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:02:13 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:35925 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753065AbXLBACM (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:02:12 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mark Lord Subject: Re: 20000+ wake-ups/second in 2.6.24. Bug? Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 01:20:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Arjan van de Ven , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Andrew Morton , abelay@novell.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <200711302153.lAULrZ7n026255@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20071201154646.5a288c9e@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <4751F484.6040204@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <4751F484.6040204@rtr.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712020120.36439.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday, 2 of December 2007, Mark Lord wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:43:39 -0500 > > Mark Lord wrote: > > > >> Dagnabbit.. it's done it again.. went from 100-200 wakeups/sec > >> back up to 20000+ wakeups/sec. This time *with* the powertop patches > >> in place. > >> > >> Somethings broken in there, but I don't know what. > >> Or how to make it happen on demand.. it's fine after rebooting again. > >> > >> ??? > >> > >> At least now I know to look when I hear the fan turning on > >> when the system is otherwise supposed to be idle.. > >> > >> 2.6.23 did not have this problem. > > > > actually we have reports of 2.6.23 having the exact same problem. > > The thing is, "something" is causing the system to go into a state > > where the cpu throws us right out of the C-state the kernel asks for. > ... > > Ahh. Okay, this machine here did not have the problem on 2.6.23. So on this particular machine it is a regression. I'm tempted to add it to the list of recent regressions in case it appears on someone else's system on which 2.6.23 works correctly. Objections? Rafael