From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751578Ab1HXPI6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:58 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:22633 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767Ab1HXPI4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="41750692" Message-ID: <4E5513FA.6060904@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:08:42 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: Steevven1 , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Bug Report for Linux Kernel 3.x References: <20110824001137.GA23979@somewhere> <20110824135852.GE23979@somewhere> In-Reply-To: <20110824135852.GE23979@somewhere> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/24/2011 6:58 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > (Please don't top-post) > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 08:21:50PM -0400, Steevven1 wrote: >> QUICK NOTE - Thanks for replying directly to me as well as the mailing >> list. I am NOT on that mailing list. Please continue to do this. >> >> That is correct about sparse irq. That was causing the first problem, >> and solving that did in fact result in better power performance, but >> it was apparently NOT the bulk of the problem. >> >> We still have no diagnosis at all for the apparently still-present >> other (mystery) problem. Powertop now reports to me very low processor >> wakeups (basically the same as the 2.6-series kernels), which >> indicates to me that the problem is PROBABLY not related to processor >> wakeups. I am by no means an expert. The top wakeup-causers with the >> modified 3.0 kernel (no sparse irq) and an idle system are "[iwlagn] >> " (wifi), "[i915]" (I don't know what this is), >> and "[kernel scheduler] Load balancing tick" >> >> P-states/frequencies are handled about the same as with the 2.6 >> kernels, so I don't see a problem there either. >> >> What else can I check? It seems like powertop is telling me nothing >> about this mystery power drain. > Well, if powertop has nothing to tell about that, I have no clue where > to go. I'm adding more people in Cc in the hope they can be more > helpful. > make sure to use powertop 1.98