James Bruce wrote:
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I was finally able to get C3 state working. It seems that my BIOS is
leaving USB controllers in an active state(?). Without any USB drivers
loaded, C3 is not possible. With drivers loaded, but no device plugged
in C3 works fine. Kernel is 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 + acpi-sbs.
Wit
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines
Jim Crilly wrote:
On 07/31/05 11:10:20PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
Kernel defaults
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
hav
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:57 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > > >>The tradeoff is
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 14:13 -0300, Stephen Ray wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >>BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
> >>as siple as "go 2.6"...
> >
> >
> > Does not matter. An app that only ever worked
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as "go 2.6"...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
But then isn't that app broken? Wha
(Sorry all, but after receiving about 5 similar messages I'm going to
make one last reply.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, my understanding was that when we properly support usb suspend,
this won't be an issue anyway for much usb hardware. I think it's
possible to put some mice to sleep when t
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, August 1, 2005 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> >
> > The tradeoff is a realist
On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > >>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
> > >>the min
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> >>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
> >>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
> >>ha
Am Dienstag, 2. August 2005 16:20 schrieben Sie:
> On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > > systems that don't.
> > Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> >
On 2005-08-02T10:52:00, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Power consumption matters to server, desktop, and laptop.
> >
> > Assuming this is a laptop issue is wildly incorrect.
>
> I would think you'd get the best power/performance ration from a desktop
> by just having it suspend after
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:45 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> It's a MONEY problem, something everybody can understand.
> It's not an environmental problem at all.
It is a huge environmental problem if you're burning fossil fuels to
generate that power.
Anyway I didn't mean there's no point
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
>>>
>>> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
>>> This is basically a laptop issue.
>>
>> Eh yes, very much.
>
> I
> > > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > > systems that don't.
> >
> > Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> > This is basically a laptop issue.
>
> Eh yes, very much.
Indeed. Safe the environment etc.
Folkert van Heu
Lee Revell schrieb:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>
>>I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
>>every machine I have that supports it.
>
>
> My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
> ACPI C-states (at least und
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
> every machine I have that supports it.
My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
ACPI C-states (at least under Windows) so will run as cool as
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of des
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of desktops with the capabil
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
But rather think "data center".
The difference between using our idle cpu cycles for [EMAIL PROTECTED] or just
leaving the xeons and opterons idle when they're not crunching away is
around $1300 a month (yes, I know it's a big datacenter) slightl
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:13 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Lee Revell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > >> ;-).
> > >
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 10:43 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> >>systems that don't.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does anyone really give a shit about savin
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Power consumptio
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
> > too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
>
> If the default value does not matter then the default sh
On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically a laptop issue.
Desktops? Screw desktops.
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:20 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> then you probably are simply too cheap
> to buy a SUV too
I have not driven a car since 2001.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:02, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
>
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically a
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
> as siple as "go 2.6"...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
> too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
If the default value does not matter then the default should remain at
1000 so as to not violate the principle
On Tue, Aug 02 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
> >
>
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> systems that don't.
>
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list
James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
>>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On
Hi!
> >In the end, Linus will decide this anyway. I can understand that you
> >don't want to change your application. Help developing the dynamic
> >tick patch, and maybe you won't have to =)
>
> From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs
> some cleanup. Thus I'd
Hi!
> >Any argument along the lines of the change of a default
> >value in the defconfig screwing people over equally applies the other
> >way around; by not changing the defconfig, you're screwing laptop users
> >(and others that want less power consumption) over. The world is not
> >black and w
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> >> ;-).
> >>
> >
> > Any idea what their official recommendation for people
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > [But we
> > probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
> > matches what 99% of users will use.]
>
> Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of
* James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050801 09:28]:
>
> Finally, as a conspiracy theorist, I wonder if Linus is just playing us
> to get more people working on the tick skipping and highres timer
> patches. Someone with the ability to herd cats obviously has to be
> sneaky. As an impressive dem
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
>>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>
> The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in the
> minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they have a
> USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can throw in
> Con's d
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:18 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
> It's already 'fixed' just set artsd to release the sound device after some
> idle time. It's in the "Auto-Suspend" seec
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 12:18 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully explain our position
> calmly enough below.
I am a bit frustrated because when I first objected to 250HZ as the
default, I was told to come up with some numbers. Now we have the
numbers, and th
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 19:07 +0300, Jan Knutar wrote:
> MPlayer cares more about unbroken sound drivers, since the video needs
> to run at the speed of your sound boards oscillator if you don't want sound
> and video to run at different rates.
> Unfortunately people use an almost random mix of alsa,
On 08/01/05 09:26:00AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > And there are older machines that won't boot with it enabled. The machine
> > I'm typing this on has a really shitty ACPI implementation, I don't remember
> > the details because it's been so long but I know that I have to disable
> > ACPI
David Weinehall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
bent"?
Calm down.
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully
On Monday 01 August 2005 09:19, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> > require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
> > bent"?
>
> MPlayer is using /dev/rtc and was running smooth for me since the good
> o
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > ;-).
> >
>
> Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> require the 1m
Hi!
> > > > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > > > ;-).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> > > require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
> > > bent"?
> >
> > So you b
Hi!
> > > If the kernel defaults are irrelevant, then it would make more sense to
> > > leave the default HZ as 1000 and not to enable the cpufreq and ACPI in
> > > order to keep with the principle of least surprise for people who do use
> > > kernel.org kernels.
> >
> > Well, I'd say you want AC
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
>> ;-).
>>
>
> Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the l
On 08/01/05 12:36:16AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > If the kernel defaults are irrelevant, then it would make more sense to
> > leave the default HZ as 1000 and not to enable the cpufreq and ACPI in
> > order to keep with the principle of least surprise for people who do use
> > kernel.org kernel
On Jul 31, 2005, at 18:32:47, Pavel Machek wrote:
and cpufreq is usefull to keep your desktop cold, too.
But I don't want my desktop cold!!! That would ruin its usefulness as a
400W dorm space-heater!!! :-D
*starts boinc client running in the background*
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
There are
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > > ;-).
> > >
> >
> > Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> > require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along t
Hi!
> > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > ;-).
> >
>
> Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
> bent"?
So you busy wait for 1msec, big deal. Some m
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> ;-).
>
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
bent"?
Lee
-
T
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> No, I'm saying that 99% users enable ACPI and cpufreq. ACPI is needed
> on new machines, and cpufreq is usefull to keep your desktop cold,
> too.
And with the recent ongoing packing of CPU cores into racks, it is even more
so important for Servers.
Grus
Hi!
> >Then the second test was probably flawed, possibly because we have
> >some more work to do. No display is irrelevant, HZ=100 will still save
> >0.5W with running display. Spinning disk also does not produce CPU
> >load (and we *will* want to have disk spinned down). No daemons... if
> >some
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:36 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
> > > > it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
> > > > Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
>
Hi!
> > > I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
> > > it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
> > > Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
> >
> > Kernel defaults are irelevant; distros change them anyway
Hi!
> > [But we
> > probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
> > matches what 99% of users will use.]
>
> Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
> installations are laptops? Bullshit.
No, I'm saying that 99% users enable ACPI and cpufreq. ACPI is ne
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
defconfig on i386 is Linus' configuration. Maybe server-config and
laptop-config would be good idea...
Um, what about those things called "desktops"? They're like a laptop
but with reasonable hard drive speeds and adult-
Pavel Machek wrote:
Then the second test was probably flawed, possibly because we have
some more work to do. No display is irrelevant, HZ=100 will still save
0.5W with running display. Spinning disk also does not produce CPU
load (and we *will* want to have disk spinned down). No daemons... if
so
On 07/31/05 11:10:20PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
> > it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
> > Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
>
> Kernel defaults are
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> defconfig on i386 is Linus' configuration. Maybe server-config and
> laptop-config would be good idea...
Um, what about those things called "desktops"? They're like a laptop
but with reasonable hard drive speeds and adult-sized keyboards?
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>[But we
>>probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
>>matches what 99% of users will use.]
>
> Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
> installations are laptops? Bullshit.
I
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
> > it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
> > Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
>
> Kernel defaults a
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> [But we
> probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
> matches what 99% of users will use.]
Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
installations are laptops? Bullshit.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from
Hi!
> >First numbers were 0.5W on idle system; that shows what kind of
> >powersaving can be done. Powersaving is no longer possible when artsd
> >is not running, but that should not be used as argument against it.
>
> It was an idle system with no display, zero daemons running, and the
> hard d
Pavel Machek wrote:
First numbers were 0.5W on idle system; that shows what kind of
powersaving can be done. Powersaving is no longer possible when artsd
is not running, but that should not be used as argument against it.
It was an idle system with no display, zero daemons running, and the
har
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 21:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I think this is a good argument for leaving HZ at 1000 until some of
> > these userspace bugs are fixed.
>
> WTF? HZ=1000 eats energy like crazy. artsd eats energy like crazy. And
> you advocate breaking kernel because artsd is broken?!
A
Hi!
> > > I think this is a good argument for leaving HZ at 1000 until some of
> > > these userspace bugs are fixed.
> >
> > WTF? HZ=1000 eats energy like crazy. artsd eats energy like crazy. And
> > you advocate breaking kernel because artsd is broken?!
>
> Maybe I am showing my ignorance as a
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 21:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I think this is a good argument for leaving HZ at 1000 until some of
> > these userspace bugs are fixed.
>
> WTF? HZ=1000 eats energy like crazy. artsd eats energy like crazy. And
> you advocate breaking kernel because artsd is broken?!
M
Hi!
> > > What kind of results do you get with a more realistic setup, like
> > > running KDE or Gnome OOTB?
> > >
> >
> > Here are results with KDE running.
> >
> > - no peripherals attached, i.e. truly mobile setup.
> > - all modules loaded
> > - klaptopdaemon disabled in order to eliminate c
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:18 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
> > pages to the sound card than HZ=1000.
> >
> > There's nothing the ALSA layer can do about this, it's a KDE bug.
> >
>
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:18 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
> > pages to the sound card than HZ=1000.
> >
> > There's nothing the ALSA layer can do about this, it's a KDE bug.
> >
>
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
> pages to the sound card than HZ=1000.
>
> There's nothing the ALSA layer can do about this, it's a KDE bug.
>
> I think this is a good argument for leaving HZ at 1000 until some of
>
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:06 +0200, Marc Ballarin wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:15:42 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > What kind of results do you get with a more realistic setup, like
> > running KDE or Gnome OOTB?
> >
>
> Here are results with KDE running.
>
> - no pe
Hi!
> I was finally able to get C3 state working. It seems that my BIOS is
> leaving USB controllers in an active state(?). Without any USB drivers
> loaded, C3 is not possible. With drivers loaded, but no device plugged
> in C3 works fine. Kernel is 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 + acpi-sbs.
>
> With working C3
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:15:42 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What kind of results do you get with a more realistic setup, like
> running KDE or Gnome OOTB?
>
Here are results with KDE running.
- no peripherals attached, i.e. truly mobile setup.
- all modules loaded
- klaptopdae
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 00:49 +0200, Marc Ballarin wrote:
> - no daemons running
What kind of results do you get with a more realistic setup, like
running KDE or Gnome OOTB?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I was finally able to get C3 state working. It seems that my BIOS is
leaving USB controllers in an active state(?). Without any USB drivers
loaded, C3 is not possible. With drivers loaded, but no device plugged
in C3 works fine. Kernel is 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 + acpi-sbs.
With working C3 there are in
82 matches
Mail list logo
