maybe there is a way to not show this up in the
various cpu monitors. I like to keep an eye on the
monitors for runaway processes, etc but this throws me
off.
--- Paul Giordano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're confusing "charged to" with "using" -
> read the paragraph a
> bit more carefully. The kernel has a facility to
> call the BIOS IDLE function
> with APM enabled when nothing else is happening -
> while in that BIOS call
> CPU "ownership" is the kapm-idled task, and the time
> increments accordingly.
> In reality, since the actual execution is in the
> BIOS IDLE routine, no CPU
> consumption is occurring - the BIOS should be
> putting your machine into a
> sleep state (If your BIOS is configured
> appropriately.)
>
> Basically APM (and ACPI, for that matter) uses the
> systems' BIOS as the
> arbiter and executor of power savings - rather than
> the kernel doing it
> directly.
>
> Hope this helps...
> Gio
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce F. Press" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the
> cpu so often?
>
>
> > Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a
> satisfactory answer,
> > clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a
> nice sleep(15) or
> > something!!
> >
> >
> > Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> > >
> > > SI Reasoning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > There are good stretches of the day where my
> CPU spins
> > > > at around 50% or more and the process spinning
> is
> > > > kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2.
> > >
> > > --=-=-=
> > > http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1:
> > >
> > > 1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time?
> > > (REG) Don't worry, it's not stealing
> valuable CPU time from
> > > other processes. It's just consuming
> idle cycles (normally
> > > charged to the idle task, which is
> displayed differently in
> > > top). Normally, when your system is
> idle, the system idle
> > > task is run, and this is shown as idle
> time (i.e. the "unused"
> > > CPU time is not charged to a specific
> process). With APM
> > > (Advanced Power Management), a special
> idle task (kapmd) is
> > > required so that greater power saving
> techniques can be
> > > enabled. So now, the "unused" CPU time
> is charged to the kapmd
> > > task instead.
> > >
> > > --=-=-=
> > >
> > > --=-=-=
> > >
>
http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-apm/OLS2000-apm.html:
> > >
> > > In 2.2 and before, we basically had a hook into
> the idle loop, so that
> > > if we had APM enabled, we would just tell the
> BIOS that we're
> > > idle. In 2.3, Linus thought it would be a good
> idea if we had a
> > > separate power management idle loop, so (he) we
> invented the
> > > kernel APM daemon and I started getting bug
> reports about this
> > > process that was using all our time, called
> kapmd. And if you sat
> > > there just running top on a 2.3 kernel, the top
> process, if you're
> > > not doing anything else, will be kapmd and it
> will be using like
> > > 85% or 90% or 95% of your CPU time. These people
> were worried
> > > because it was idle: why is it using all of the
> time? Well
> > > actually, it's just that the time is getting
> accounted to that
> > > process. It's not doing anything, it's the idle
> loop. [26m, 12s]
> > > --=-=-=
> > >
> > > --
> > > MandrakeSoft Inc
> http://www.chmouel.org
> > > --Chmouel
>
>
>
=====
SI Reasoning
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
gnupg/pgp key id 035213BC
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
