[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rik van Riel) writes:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip whine]
>
> > I've consistently re-produced this on my Dell Latitude CS laptop. I'm
> > wondering if this will reduce battery life since the CPU is constantly
> > being loaded instead of properly idled.
>
> What do you suppose the 'idled' in 'kapm-idled' stands for?
We know it was an attempt to stop people complaining about the fact that
"kapm" was hogging the CPU. Looks like it doesn't work.
At the time, I had a look at the kernel source, and came to the conclusion
that there was no easy way for the cpu accounting in "do_process_times()"
to automatically assign ticks from a particular process to the idle
process.
However, would it be possible for apm_cpu_idle() to periodically assign
the values for per_cpu_*time for the kernel thread to the idle process?
This isn't a performance critical part of the kernel, and would lead to
less false reports (as above).
--
`O O' | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// ^ \\ | http://www.pyrites.org.uk/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
