From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Doug Smythies" Subject: RE: CPUs do not go idle - excessive energy consumption Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:10:04 -0700 Message-ID: <000001d3442c$f8c44b20$ea4ce160$@net> References: <000001d3436e$b9b58160$2d208420$@net> 2fn5expvk3OTt2fn6eOG4c 2gTken1Ckt1L52gTmefPL5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cmta20.telus.net ([209.171.16.93]:33680 "EHLO cmta20.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758262AbdJMOKI (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:10:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: 2gTken1Ckt1L52gTmefPL5 Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" Cc: 'Linux PM' 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 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. The patch did not solve the problem. 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