[2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Len Brown]

From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Date:   Wed Apr 9 21:31:46 2008 -0400

commit 0fda6b403f0eca66ad8a7c946b3996e359100443
    
Patch to fix huge number of wakeups reported due to recent changes in
processor_idle.c. The problem was that the entry_method determination was
broken due to one of the recent commits (bc71bec91f987) causing
C1 entry to not to go to halt.
    
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/22/124
    
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 788da97..836362b 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -848,6 +848,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info_default(struct acpi_processor *pr)
 		/* all processors need to support C1 */
 		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].type = ACPI_STATE_C1;
 		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].valid = 1;
+		pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C1].entry_method = ACPI_CSTATE_HALT;
 	}
 	/* the C0 state only exists as a filler in our array */
 	pr->power.states[ACPI_STATE_C0].valid = 1;
@@ -960,6 +961,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst(struct acpi_processor *pr)
 				 cx.address);
 		}
 
+		if (cx.type == ACPI_STATE_C1) {
+			cx.valid = 1;
+		}
 
 		obj = &(element->package.elements[2]);
 		if (obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)

Re: [stable] [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:15:19PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
> Date:   Wed Apr 9 21:31:46 2008 -0400
> 
> commit 0fda6b403f0eca66ad8a7c946b3996e359100443

I don't see this commit in Linus's tree, is it not needed in it and only
in the 2.6.25-stable tree as it was fixed some other way?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Daniel Klaffenbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

> commit 0fda6b403f0eca66ad8a7c946b3996e359100443
>
> Patch to fix huge number of wakeups reported due to recent changes in
> processor_idle.c. The problem was that the entry_method determination was
> broken due to one of the recent commits (bc71bec91f987) causing
> C1 entry to not to go to halt.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/22/124
>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
OK, this fixes my issue with the massive amount of wakeups:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/24/70

However the CPU does not really go to C1 or C2 after applying this patch to 
the latest git kernel:

Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
C0 (cpu running)        (99,4%)         1,80 Ghz     0,0%
C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
C2                0,0ms ( 0,6%)          800 Mhz   100,0%

- Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Klaffenbach [mailto:danielklaffenbach@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:10 AM
>To: Len Brown
>Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Subject: Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 
>120K wakeups/sec
>
>> commit 0fda6b403f0eca66ad8a7c946b3996e359100443
>>
>> Patch to fix huge number of wakeups reported due to recent changes in
>> processor_idle.c. The problem was that the entry_method 
>determination was
>> broken due to one of the recent commits (bc71bec91f987) causing
>> C1 entry to not to go to halt.
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/22/124
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>OK, this fixes my issue with the massive amount of wakeups:
>http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/24/70
>
>However the CPU does not really go to C1 or C2 after applying 
>this patch to 
>the latest git kernel:
>
>Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
>C0 (cpu running)        (99,4%)         1,80 Ghz     0,0%
>C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
>C2                0,0ms ( 0,6%)          800 Mhz   100,0%
>


Did C1, C2 work fine with 2.6.24?
Can you send me the full dmesg when it is failing to enter C1, C2 with
latest git + patch.
Output of
#grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/*
And also attach the acpidump output (pmtools package here
http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php)

Thanks,
Venki

Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Daniel Klaffenbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1921 bytes --]

Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> Did C1, C2 work fine with 2.6.24?
> Can you send me the full dmesg when it is failing to enter C1, C2 with
> latest git + patch.
> Output of
> #grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/*
> And also attach the acpidump output (pmtools package here
> http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php)
No, C1/C2 did not seem to work with 2.6.24 - at least powertop reported 99,9% 
C0 usage. It was the same behavior as after applying the wakeup patch. 
However in 2.6.25 and 2.6.25-git11 C1/C2 worked correctly and C2 showed up in 
pt. But after applying your patch to 2.6.25-git11 they did not:

git11:
PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
C0 (cpu running)        ( 9,4%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
C2                0,4ms (90,6%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
Wakeups-from-idle per second : 9051,0   interval: 5,0s

git11 with wakeup-patch:
PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
C0 (cpu running)        (99,9%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
C2                0,2ms ( 0,1%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
Wakeups-from-idle per second : 59,8     interval: 10,0s

In both cases the system was idle. I've uploaded the files you wanted:
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11.txt
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11_wakeuppatch.txt
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11.txt
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11_wakeuppatch.txt
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/nx6125_acpidump.out

If there is anything else I can do for debugging this issue please let me 
know.

- Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Klaffenbach [mailto:danielklaffenbach@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
>To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Cc: Len Brown; Linux Kernel Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 
>120K wakeups/sec
>
>Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>> Did C1, C2 work fine with 2.6.24?
>> Can you send me the full dmesg when it is failing to enter 
>C1, C2 with
>> latest git + patch.
>> Output of
>> #grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/*
>> And also attach the acpidump output (pmtools package here
>> http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php)
>No, C1/C2 did not seem to work with 2.6.24 - at least powertop 
>reported 99,9% 
>C0 usage. It was the same behavior as after applying the wakeup patch. 
>However in 2.6.25 and 2.6.25-git11 C1/C2 worked correctly and 
>C2 showed up in 
>pt. But after applying your patch to 2.6.25-git11 they did not:
>
>git11:
>PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
>Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
>C0 (cpu running)        ( 9,4%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
>C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
>C2                0,4ms (90,6%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
>Wakeups-from-idle per second : 9051,0   interval: 5,0s
>
>git11 with wakeup-patch:
>PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
>Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
>C0 (cpu running)        (99,9%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
>C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
>C2                0,2ms ( 0,1%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
>Wakeups-from-idle per second : 59,8     interval: 10,0s
>
>In both cases the system was idle. I've uploaded the files you wanted:
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11.txt
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11
>_wakeuppatch.txt
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11.txt
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11_w
akeuppatch.txt
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/nx6125_acpidump.out
>
>If there is anything else I can do for debugging this issue 
>please let me 
>know.
>

With git11+wakeup patch, things seems to be working fine as per
>http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11_wakeupp
atch.txt

CPU is spending most of the time in C3 state. Looks like there is some
problem with
powertop reporting here. I know there were some changes to this area in
powertop.
Can you try the latest powertop version from svn
(http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/download.php) and see
whether the issue is fixed.

Thanks,
Venki

Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Ray Lee]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Pallipadi, Venkatesh
<venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> wrote:
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: Daniel Klaffenbach [mailto:danielklaffenbach@gmail.com]
>
> >Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
>  >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>  >Cc: Len Brown; Linux Kernel Mailing List
>  >Subject: Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says
>  >120K wakeups/sec
>  >
>
>
> >Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>  >> Did C1, C2 work fine with 2.6.24?
>  >> Can you send me the full dmesg when it is failing to enter
>  >C1, C2 with
>  >> latest git + patch.
>  >> Output of
>  >> #grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/*
>  >> And also attach the acpidump output (pmtools package here
>  >> http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php)
>  >No, C1/C2 did not seem to work with 2.6.24 - at least powertop
>  >reported 99,9%
>  >C0 usage. It was the same behavior as after applying the wakeup patch.
>  >However in 2.6.25 and 2.6.25-git11 C1/C2 worked correctly and
>  >C2 showed up in
>  >pt. But after applying your patch to 2.6.25-git11 they did not:
>  >
>  >git11:
>  >PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
>  >Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
>  >C0 (cpu running)        ( 9,4%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
>  >C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
>  >C2                0,4ms (90,6%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
>  >Wakeups-from-idle per second : 9051,0   interval: 5,0s
>  >
>  >git11 with wakeup-patch:
>  >PowerTOP version 1.9       (C) 2007 Intel Corporation
>  >Cn                Avg residency       P-states (frequencies)
>  >C0 (cpu running)        (99,9%)         1,80 Ghz   100,0%
>  >C1                0,0ms ( 0,0%)         1,60 Ghz     0,0%
>  >C2                0,2ms ( 0,1%)          800 Mhz     0,0%
>  >Wakeups-from-idle per second : 59,8     interval: 10,0s
>  >
>  >In both cases the system was idle. I've uploaded the files you wanted:
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11.txt
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11
>  >_wakeuppatch.txt
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11.txt
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/dmesg_git11_w
>  akeuppatch.txt
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/nx6125_acpidump.out
>  >
>  >If there is anything else I can do for debugging this issue
>  >please let me
>  >know.
>  >
>
>  With git11+wakeup patch, things seems to be working fine as per
>  >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11_wakeupp
>  atch.txt
>
>  CPU is spending most of the time in C3 state. Looks like there is some
>  problem with
>  powertop reporting here. I know there were some changes to this area in
>  powertop.
>  Can you try the latest powertop version from svn
>  (http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/download.php) and see
>  whether the issue is fixed.

I have the same laptop. Powertop (as I'd last tested it) misreports C3
as C2 -- the laptop (nx6125) does not support C2 according to

$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/C000/power
active state:            C0
max_cstate:              C8
bus master activity:     00000000
maximum allowed latency: 2000 usec
states:
     C1:                  type[C1] promotion[--] demotion[--]
latency[000] usage[21566331] duration[00000000000000000000]
     C2:                  <not supported>
     C3:                  type[C3] promotion[--] demotion[--]
latency[010] usage[20968443] duration[00000000000478095079]

I sent a patch for powertop (
http://www.bughost.org/pipermail/power/2008-February/001306.html ),
but as far as I can see it hasn't been picked up. (Perhaps it's wrong
or incomplete, dunno -- Arjan never replied.) [goes and pulls svn...]
Powertop SVN head (rev 290) still has the problem.

Re: [2.6.25-stable PATCH] regression: powertop says 120K wakeups/sec

[Daniel Klaffenbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> With git11+wakeup patch, things seems to be working fine as per
>
> >http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~klada/misc/kernel/cpuidle_git11_wakeupp
>
> atch.txt
>
> CPU is spending most of the time in C3 state. Looks like there is some
> problem with
> powertop reporting here. I know there were some changes to this area in
> powertop.
> Can you try the latest powertop version from svn
> (http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/download.php) and see
> whether the issue is fixed.
>
> Thanks,
> Venki
You are right, with powertop-svn C2-usage is being displayed properly. I hope 
your patch is going to make it to the stable tree pretty soon.

Thank you,
Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]