At Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:26:32 +0200, Alexe Fisher wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 16:37 +0100 schrieb Adam Sloboda: > > At Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:25:03 -0800, > > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry, are you trying to convince me that my problem is not real? > > > > You can compare to my completely idle system (I even closed the > > > > browser but with these residency values it doesn't really matter > > > > anymore in terms of power saving): > > > > > > > > Cn Avg residency > > > > C0 (cpu running) ( 4.7%) > > > > C0 0.1ms ( 0.0%) > > > > C1 mwait 0.0ms ( 0.0%) > > > > C2 mwait 0.1ms ( 0.5%) > > > > C6 mwait 2.9ms (94.8%) > > > > P-states (frequencies) > > > > 2.41 Ghz 2.3% > > > > 2.40 Ghz 0.4% > > > > 1.60 Ghz 0.9% > > > > 800 Mhz 96.5% > > > > Wakeups-from-idle per second : 369.8 interval: 15.0s > > > > Power usage (ACPI estimate): 12.2W (3.0 hours) > > > > Top causes for wakeups: > > > > 73.0% (363.4)<kernel IPI> : Rescheduling interrupts > > > > 9.2% ( 45.7)<interrupt> : extra timer interrupt > > > > 6.1% ( 30.3)<interrupt> : iwlagn > > > > 4.0% ( 19.8)<interrupt> : acpi > > > > 2.1% ( 10.5) gkrellm : schedule_hrtimeout_range > > > > (hrtimer_wakeup) > > > > 2.0% ( 10.1) xfwm4 : schedule_hrtimeout_range > > > > (hrtimer_wakeup) > > > > > > > > > > > > > so one of the things of this rescheduling interrupt is that it is sort of > > > a side effect of other wakeups/code running. > > > I bet that if you, say, stop gkrellm, you'll see it go down > > > proportionally .... > > > > Not really. As I wrote in the first mail, it's all ok until I run any > > X processes (running just GDM is fine). > > > > Cn Avg residency > > C0 (cpu running) ( 2.3%) > > C0 0.1ms ( 0.0%) > > C1 mwait 0.0ms ( 0.0%) > > C2 mwait 0.1ms ( 0.2%) > > C6 mwait 5.6ms (97.5%) > > P-states (frequencies) > > 2.41 Ghz 3.4% > > 2.40 Ghz 0.0% > > 1.60 Ghz 4.0% > > 800 Mhz 92.7% > > Wakeups-from-idle per second : 195.6 interval: 15.0s > > Power usage (ACPI estimate): 12.2W (2.9 hours) > > Top causes for wakeups: > > 76.6% (242.6) <kernel IPI> : Rescheduling interrupts > > 9.3% ( 29.5) <interrupt> : iwlagn > > 5.9% ( 18.7) <interrupt> : acpi > > 2.0% ( 6.3) <interrupt> : extra timer interrupt > > 1.3% ( 4.2) <interrupt> : i...@pci:0000:00:02.0 > > > > > > And here with networking turned off: > > > > Cn Avg residency > > C0 (cpu running) ( 2.3%) > > C0 0.0ms ( 0.0%) > > C1 mwait 0.0ms ( 0.0%) > > C2 mwait 0.1ms ( 0.2%) > > C6 mwait 5.9ms (97.5%) > > P-states (frequencies) > > 2.41 Ghz 4.3% > > 2.40 Ghz 3.2% > > 1.60 Ghz 4.3% > > 800 Mhz 88.1% > > Wakeups-from-idle per second : 189.1 interval: 15.0s > > Power usage (ACPI estimate): 11.1W (3.2 hours) > > Top causes for wakeups: > > 82.9% (254.8) <kernel IPI> : Rescheduling interrupts > > 7.2% ( 22.0) <interrupt> : acpi > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is not normal. Try different acpi options, apic and > so on. Here yyou can find some of them: > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt;h=736d45602886ea7b08024f246f06e9c7c6dc1a05;hb=HEAD > > And first of all: try newest git kernel.
This acpi interrupt is caused by DBUS. I don't really know why. I tried 2.6.33-rc5 with no luck. But see my other mail, this extra power consumption was probably caused by wifi card. > > This is definitely not IPI bug. You have some timer/acpi issue, this is > why powertop cant see it. > > > 2.7% ( 8.3) <interrupt> : extra timer interrupt > > 1.1% ( 3.3) <interrupt> : i...@pci:0000:00:02.0 > > 0.7% ( 2.3) <interrupt> : ahci > > 0.7% ( 2.0) xfce4-hdaps : schedule_hrtimeout_range > > (hrtimer_wakeup) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Power mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power > > _______________________________________________ Power mailing list [email protected] http://www.bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power
