On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:14:39 +0200 Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> This almost looks like a regular Athlon 64, not even the mobile
> version. I wouldn't expect very big deep sleep capabilities on that
> one. You can check the
>
> /proc/acpi/processor/CPU1/power
>
> file for the list of C states. A
Brown, Len wrote:
Digging up this patch from last month regarding C2
on a AMD K7 implies
that the whole blame can be put on kernel acpi:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111933745131301&w=2
The current Linus tree includes generic ACPI support
for deep C-states on SMP machines
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 08:04:48PM +0200, Voluspa wrote:
>
> I'd gladly (ehum..) redo this mind-numbingly boring test if someone can
> point me to a magic software which unleashes some untapped powersaving
> feature of the CPU.
>
> _Kernel 2.6.13-rc3 Boot to Death_:
>
> 2h48m at 100 HZ
> 2h48m a
On 2005-07-26 5:23:08 Len Brown wrote:
>than C1 and the generic ACPI code doesn't support it,
>then it is either a Linux/ACPI bug or a BIOS bug -- file away:-)
The issue has made me fume enough to contemplating installing windos for
the first time in some 10 years. But I'll persevere. Will learn
>>>Digging up this patch from last month regarding C2
>>>on a AMD K7 implies
>>>that the whole blame can be put on kernel acpi:
>>>
>>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111933745131301&w=2
The current Linus tree includes generic ACPI support
for deep C-states on SMP machines. (deep
Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050722 11:46]:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:02:36 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
will not help. It seems like your machine is simply not able to do
reasonable powersaving.
Digging up this patch from last month regarding C2 on a AMD K7 implies
that th
* Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050722 11:46]:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:02:36 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > will not help. It seems like your machine is simply not able to do
> > reasonable powersaving.
>
> Digging up this patch from last month regarding C2 on a AMD K7 implies
> that the whole blam
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:02:36 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
> will not help. It seems like your machine is simply not able to do
> reasonable powersaving.
Digging up this patch from last month regarding C2 on a AMD K7 implies
that the whole blame can be put on kernel acpi:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:02:36 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Okay, if you have no C2/C3 like the dump above shows, unloading usb
> will not help. It seems like your machine is simply not able to do
> reasonable powersaving.
Because of the CPU, ACPI implementation or because of kernel acpi
quality, x86
Hi!
> and catting /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power gives
> active state: C1
> max_cstate: C8
> bus master activity:
> states:
>*C1: type[C1] promotion[--] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[02998796]
>
> /sys/module/processor/parameters/max_cstate says 8
> /sys/module/processor/parameter
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:48:55 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
[...]
...Jesper Juhl wrote
> > Ok, so with an idle machine, different HZ makes no noticeable
> > difference, but I'd suspect things would be different if the machine
> > was actually doing some work.
> > Would be more interresting to see ho
Hi!
> > I'd gladly (ehum..) redo this mind-numbingly boring test if someone can
> > point me to a magic software which unleashes some untapped powersaving
> > feature of the CPU.
> >
> > _Kernel 2.6.13-rc3 Boot to Death_:
> >
> > 2h48m at 100 HZ
> > 2h48m at 250 HZ
> > 2h47m at 1000 HZ
> >
> >
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:49:59 +0200 Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> 2005/7/21, Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > 2h48m at 100 HZ
> > 2h48m at 250 HZ
> > 2h47m at 1000 HZ
>
> Now, what would be interesting is to see if the lack of differences
> comes from the fact that the processor has enough time
2005/7/21, Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 2h48m at 100 HZ
> 2h48m at 250 HZ
> 2h47m at 1000 HZ
Now, what would be interesting is to see if the lack of differences
comes from the fact that the processor has enough time to sleep,
not enough time, or simply it does not matter.
That is, is it a be
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:14:32 +0200 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 7/21/05, Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >
> Ok, so with an idle machine, different HZ makes no noticeable
> difference, but I'd suspect things would be different if the machine
> was actually doing some work.
I first thought a
On 7/21/05, Voluspa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd gladly (ehum..) redo this mind-numbingly boring test if someone can
> point me to a magic software which unleashes some untapped powersaving
> feature of the CPU.
>
> _Kernel 2.6.13-rc3 Boot to Death_:
>
> 2h48m at 100 HZ
> 2h48m at 250 HZ
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
