http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5767
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |m
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
------- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-19 00:11 -------
> upping ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_C2_LATENCY
> to overcome the manufacturer's sneaky 101 value
No, don't do this. Values over 100 are the official (not sneaky)
way to tell the OS that the platform does not support C2.
Reading my comments above, I think I misunderstood your report.
Apparently I thought your box was the one with the boot hang.
I believe that your report boils down to the lack of an
incrementing counter in C1 in /proc/acpi/processor/*/power.
I believe that is simply cosmetic and that you are still
executing HLT or MWAIT as needed in C1.
Assigning to Venkatesh, who is re-writing this code...
Eventually we should have TSC-based cycle-accurate C-state residency.
He may simply close this one as DOCUMENTED.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
acpi-bugzilla mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-bugzilla
