RE: CPUs do not go idle - excessive energy consumption

["Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>]

On 2017.10.13 07:10 Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2017.10.12 09:36 Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2017.10.12 08:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am observing higher than nominal processor package power consumption, under
>>>> some conditions. The worst case, so far, was an extra 6.3 watts or 25%, however
>>>> more typically it is between 0 and 4 watts (over 1 minute sampling intervals).
>>>>
>> ...[snip]...
>>
>>> For starters, you can try to apply this patch
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9866841/ and see if it makes any
>> difference.
>>
>> Oh darn, I missed the importance and relevance of that e-mail (but I did get it),
>> which might have saved me a lot of time.
>> It sounds like it is exactly the same issue.
>> I'll try it as soon as I can either resolve the conflicts, or go back
>> and apply it to whatever kernel version would result in no conflicts.
>>
>> I'll report back once I have some test results.

I'll report back by replying to the above referenced e-mail.

> The patch did not solve the problem.

The patch did not work as it was sent.
The changes I had to make will also be in the above mentioned reply.

The patch still doesn't solve this particular problem.
Merely disabling idle state 0 does solve the problem.
I have been trying to demonstrate a downside to disabling
idle state 0, and haven't found one. pipe-test is something we used
before, but I don't see any difference on my computer.

I have reviewed and reminded myself about the issues with the menu governor.

> 
> Because the test results vary, and always have, it is hard to know for
> certain of there was some improvement, but I did have a couple of 10 minute
> tests with 0 occurrences (based on my arbitrary thresholds). A one hour
> test had 530 occurrences.
>
> ... Doug