> > 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 har
> > 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 die
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 distingu
>> 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
> st
Hi!
> > > 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
> > 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 t
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 id
> 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 als
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.
-- J
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 eve
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'
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'
> 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 'kap
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 20
[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 proper
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 'kap
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] hissed:
> I've recently begun testing my laptop on the latest 2.4.0-test12-pre[78]
> kernels. When freshly booted and nothing producing a load on the system,
> top reports a process called 'kapm-idled' consuming between 60% an 85%
> of CPU cycles. [...]
i
17 matches
Mail list logo
