Re: What is kapm-idled?
On Mon, 2001-09-03 at 22:34, Eric G. Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:07:47AM +0800, csj wrote: What is kapm-idled and why is it consuming up to 80% CPU? It's most malevolent when my computer is doing nothing useful. What's the graceful way to disable or shut it down (assuming that doing so would not harm my system)? apropos kapm kapm: nothing appropriate AFAIK, kapm-idled has something to do with apm management on newer kernels. That 80% CPU usage is apparently something of a lie, since when this process is switched in, it isn't doing anything (e.g. 80% idled, or some such). I'm still running in 2.2.x land, so maybe someone else can give a better explanation... That's right. kapm-idled is the idle time daemon in kernel 2.4.x. It runs when the processor is not doing anything and calls the idle/call instructions to cool the processor/slow the processor/save battery. Ross Burton
Re: What is kapm-idled?
On 04 Sep 2001 09:53:03 +0100 Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2001-09-03 at 22:34, Eric G. Miller wrote: snip AFAIK, kapm-idled has something to do with apm management on newer kernels. That 80% CPU usage is apparently something of a lie, since when this process is switched in, it isn't doing anything (e.g. 80% idled, or some such). I'm still running in 2.2.x land, so maybe someone else can give a better explanation... That's right. kapm-idled is the idle time daemon in kernel 2.4.x. It runs when the processor is not doing anything and calls the idle/call instructions to cool the processor/slow the processor/save battery. Got it. I remember ticking some option in the xconfig after I recompiled for a newer processor. Now, does this idle time daemon have any performance penalty? Does it have anything to do with the slower hard disk accesses I've been having after I upgraded to a Duron 800?
Re: What is kapm-idled?
I've seen some slowdown's also when kapm-idled is enabled in the kernel: processes would be slower starting HD access was slower screen refresh was slower etc... Using kernel 2.4.9 on a Dell Latitude CP M233ST. Once I recompiled without the option, my speed is back. I notice that the kapm-idled still shows up in my process list, but it is not sucking up all the CPU time now. Steve On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:12:04AM +0800, csj wrote: On 04 Sep 2001 09:53:03 +0100 Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2001-09-03 at 22:34, Eric G. Miller wrote: snip AFAIK, kapm-idled has something to do with apm management on newer kernels. That 80% CPU usage is apparently something of a lie, since when this process is switched in, it isn't doing anything (e.g. 80% idled, or some such). I'm still running in 2.2.x land, so maybe someone else can give a better explanation... That's right. kapm-idled is the idle time daemon in kernel 2.4.x. It runs when the processor is not doing anything and calls the idle/call instructions to cool the processor/slow the processor/save battery. Got it. I remember ticking some option in the xconfig after I recompiled for a newer processor. Now, does this idle time daemon have any performance penalty? Does it have anything to do with the slower hard disk accesses I've been having after I upgraded to a Duron 800? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Steve Mayer Oracle Corporation Senior Member of Technical Staff1211 SW 5th Ave. Portland Development Center Suite 900 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-525-3127 =
Re: What is kapm-idled?
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:07:47AM +0800, csj wrote: What is kapm-idled and why is it consuming up to 80% CPU? It's most malevolent when my computer is doing nothing useful. What's the graceful way to disable or shut it down (assuming that doing so would not harm my system)? apropos kapm kapm: nothing appropriate AFAIK, kapm-idled has something to do with apm management on newer kernels. That 80% CPU usage is apparently something of a lie, since when this process is switched in, it isn't doing anything (e.g. 80% idled, or some such). I'm still running in 2.2.x land, so maybe someone else can give a better explanation... -- Eric G. Miller egm2@jps.net
