On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 07:04 +0100, Pavel Troller wrote: > Hi! > I posted the following question, when 2.6.19 was freshly out. However, > nobody > has answered. OK, I told myself, let's get things to stabilize, and I waited > patiently for 2.6.20. Now, the things are absolutely the same, and IMHO wrong. > Could anybody look at this and decide, whether it is a real bug, which has to > be fixed, or not ?
Hi , I also have a Pentium D with a very strange things http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6419 have you test yours in older kernels? > With regards, Pavel Troller > > ----- Forwarded message from Pavel Troller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > From: Pavel Troller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Strange things on 2.6.19 for a dual-core CPU > Mail-Followup-To: Pavel Troller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i > > Hi! > I've updated to vanilla 2.6.19 on my Pentium-D (dual-core x86_64) box. > Now I can't see even C1 in the /proc/acpi/processor/*/power output: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU1/power > active state: C0 > max_cstate: C8 > bus master activity: 00000000 > maximum allowed latency: 2000 usec > states: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU2/power > active state: C0 > max_cstate: C8 > bus master activity: 00000000 > maximum allowed latency: 2000 usec > states: > > Another interesting thing is shown here: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU1/info > processor id: 0 > acpi id: 1 > bus mastering control: no > power management: no > throttling control: yes > limit interface: yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU2/info > processor id: 1 > acpi id: 2 > bus mastering control: no > power management: no > throttling control: no > limit interface: no > > As I remember, both cores were showing the same things formerly. > The only line referring to CPUs during boot is > ACPI: Processor [CPU1] (supports 8 throttling states) > and CPU2 is not mentioned at all. > > The last (but maybe not acpi-related) strange thing is that in > /proc/cpuinfo, > CPU1 reports 6403.56 bogomips (as always, approximately twice the clock) and > CPU2 > 8314.32 ones (too much). It's also very suspicious. Formerly the difference > was > very small. > > Should I provide more info to debug these things, or is it OK ? > With regards, Pavel Troller > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Sérgio M.B.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
