On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:52:33 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:11 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > > On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
>
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:52:33 -0700, john stultz wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:11 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
So
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:11 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > > > So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:11 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the
On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > > So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the
> > > > idle loop.
> > > > I'm guessing the chipset
On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:14:36 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the
idle loop.
I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM
On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the idle loop.
> > > I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM in lower C states. Do you
> > > have any guesses as to what
On Friday 04 May 2007 03:42, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the idle loop.
I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM in lower C states. Do you
have any guesses as to what might
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the idle loop.
> > I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM in lower C states. Do you
> > have any guesses as to what might differ between x86_64 and i386 ACPI
> > idle loops?
On Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700, john stultz wrote:
So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the idle loop.
I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM in lower C states. Do you
have any guesses as to what might differ between x86_64 and i386 ACPI
idle loops? Or might
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 11:10 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:24 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:42:44 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > >Another shot in the dark:
> > >
> > >I wonder if the ACPI PM counter is halting in idle. Does booting w/
> >
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 11:10 -0700, john stultz wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:24 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:42:44 -0700, john stultz wrote:
Another shot in the dark:
I wonder if the ACPI PM counter is halting in idle. Does booting w/
idle=poll change the
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:24 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:42:44 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> >Another shot in the dark:
> >
> >I wonder if the ACPI PM counter is halting in idle. Does booting w/
> >idle=poll change the behavior? (Please do this while your laptop is
>
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:24 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:42:44 -0700, john stultz wrote:
Another shot in the dark:
I wonder if the ACPI PM counter is halting in idle. Does booting w/
idle=poll change the behavior? (Please do this while your laptop is
plugged in, as
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I guess this counts as a regression.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:16:25 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Mikael Pettersson
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [BUG 2.6.21-rc7] acpi_pm clocksource loses
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I guess this counts as a regression.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:16:25 +0200 (MEST)
From: Mikael Pettersson
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG 2.6.21-rc7] acpi_pm clocksource loses time on
16 matches
Mail list logo
