Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
> > Doing it this way is _way_ better for system > > stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM > > bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal > > as it can be. > > Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in > the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. If the're a lot of buggy APM BIOS'es out there it may indeed not be a wise idea to throw everything on one pile. Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
> > Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two > > idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a > > separate apm idle task has a purpose. > > You can't do that. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system > stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM > bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal > as it can be. Hmm.. Means two idle task then :) Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! > >> Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two > >> idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a > >> separate apm idle task has a purpose. > > > > You can't do that. > > Sure you can, and it makes perfect sense. No. You lost the way to distinguish between real "idle" spend, and kapm-idle spend -- they are different, in kapm-idle cpu is slowed down. > > Doing it this way is _way_ better for system > > stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM > > bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal > > as it can be. > > Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in > the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. Ha ha. It was that way. Linus saw it was bad so he fixed it. Bugs are discovered/fixed anyway, because you get ugly oops. But ugly oops is better than even uglier oops that does not go to syslog and that kills you machine hard, you see? Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a separate apm idle task has a purpose. You can't do that. Sure you can, and it makes perfect sense. No. You lost the way to distinguish between real "idle" spend, and kapm-idle spend -- they are different, in kapm-idle cpu is slowed down. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal as it can be. Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. Ha ha. It was that way. Linus saw it was bad so he fixed it. Bugs are discovered/fixed anyway, because you get ugly oops. But ugly oops is better than even uglier oops that does not go to syslog and that kills you machine hard, you see? Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a separate apm idle task has a purpose. You can't do that. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal as it can be. Hmm.. Means two idle task then :) Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Doing it this way is _way_ better for system stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal as it can be. Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. If the're a lot of buggy APM BIOS'es out there it may indeed not be a wise idea to throw everything on one pile. Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
>> Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two >> idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a >> separate apm idle task has a purpose. > > You can't do that. Sure you can, and it makes perfect sense. > Doing it this way is _way_ better for system > stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM > bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal > as it can be. Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
> > What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' > > with OS'ses that display the idle task. > > Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is > in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast. Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a separate apm idle task has a purpose. > Pavel Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' with OS'ses that display the idle task. Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast. Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a separate apm idle task has a purpose. Pavel Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a separate apm idle task has a purpose. You can't do that. Sure you can, and it makes perfect sense. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal as it can be. Good. Maybe the bugs will get fixed then. If the bugs are in the BIOS or motherboard hardware, we can have a blacklist. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! > > How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in > > /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? > > > > ps & top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. > > What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' > with OS'ses that display the idle task. Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast. > It's also the 'right' thing to do, and should directly work with top / ps Yes, we should make pid 0 visible to userlnad, agreed. Pavel -- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+ - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? ps top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' with OS'ses that display the idle task. Linux has already another thread with pid 0, called "swapper" which is in fact idle. kidle-apmd is different beast. It's also the 'right' thing to do, and should directly work with top / ps Yes, we should make pid 0 visible to userlnad, agreed. Pavel -- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+ - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
> How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in > /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? > > ps & top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' with OS'ses that display the idle task. It's also the 'right' thing to do, and should directly work with top / ps Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? ps top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. What's the problem with using PID 0 as the idle task ? That's 'standard' with OS'ses that display the idle task. It's also the 'right' thing to do, and should directly work with top / ps Igmar - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Pavel Machek wrote: > I guess we should just put even normal idle thread to be visible in > ps. It is cleaner design, anyway. How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? ps & top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. -- Jamie - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! > Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and > inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show > a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' > seems like the wrong answer. I guess we should just put even normal idle thread to be visible in ps. It is cleaner design, anyway. Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Hi! Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. I guess we should just put even normal idle thread to be visible in ps. It is cleaner design, anyway. Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Pavel Machek wrote: I guess we should just put even normal idle thread to be visible in ps. It is cleaner design, anyway. How about adding a flag to FLAGS, or a new letter in STATE in /proc/pid/stat, to mean "this is an idle task"? ps top could easily by taught to recognise the flag. -- Jamie - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:56:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and > inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show > a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' > seems like the wrong answer. Even worse: Formerly you could take conclusions from the sys part of your load. This is not possible any more. I dislike this as well and consider it a cosmetical bug. (Which is much better than a real bug, don't get me wrong. I fixing the cosmetical one introduces a real one: Don't do it!) Regards, -- Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eindhoven, NL GPG key: See mail header, key servers Linux kernel development SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, FRG SCSI, Security PGP signature
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > very helpful. > > Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and > inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show > a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' > seems like the wrong answer. > > stewart > Err.. Did you see the comment about shared memory info being permanently removed because (something about too CPU intensive to justify...)? It looks like we need to find another way to get kernel info rather than from /proc. We need to calculate stuff only when it's needed. Calculating stuff all the time, to make it available should somebody care to read it in the /proc file-system is wasteful. Maybe we need to have some kind of 'kernel ioctl' where a user-mode caller 'pays' for the CPU cycles necessary to obtain the info that the caller requests. A better idea might be to have the 'read' of a particular /proc file-system item, result in the calculation of the new values. That way, the read and calculation of new values gets charged to the reader. In any event, the continuous calculation of 'kernel stuff' that may be read once a week at most, is definitely a waste of CPU cycles. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.54 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
> Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and > inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show the goal of kernel revision is *not* to remain consistent with old stuff. > a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' > seems like the wrong answer. so don't run APM already. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
very helpful. Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. stewart On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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? > > Rik - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
[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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
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? Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
very helpful. Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. stewart On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: 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? Rik - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show the goal of kernel revision is *not* to remain consistent with old stuff. a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. so don't run APM already. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: very helpful. Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. stewart Err.. Did you see the comment about shared memory info being permanently removed because (something about too CPU intensive to justify...)? It looks like we need to find another way to get kernel info rather than from /proc. We need to calculate stuff only when it's needed. Calculating stuff all the time, to make it available should somebody care to read it in the /proc file-system is wasteful. Maybe we need to have some kind of 'kernel ioctl' where a user-mode caller 'pays' for the CPU cycles necessary to obtain the info that the caller requests. A better idea might be to have the 'read' of a particular /proc file-system item, result in the calculation of the new values. That way, the read and calculation of new values gets charged to the reader. In any event, the continuous calculation of 'kernel stuff' that may be read once a week at most, is definitely a waste of CPU cycles. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.54 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - 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/
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:56:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled' seems like the wrong answer. Even worse: Formerly you could take conclusions from the sys part of your load. This is not possible any more. I dislike this as well and consider it a cosmetical bug. (Which is much better than a real bug, don't get me wrong. I fixing the cosmetical one introduces a real one: Don't do it!) Regards, -- Kurt Garloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eindhoven, NL GPG key: See mail header, key servers Linux kernel development SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, FRG SCSI, Security PGP signature
Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?
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? Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - 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/
