lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 50 Watt idle power regression bisected to Linux-3.10

* Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 11:45 -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > >> It fixes that, except for my Q6600 box. Too bad mwait_idle() went away,
> > >> beloved old box doesn't play hints game, so it continues to flog itself.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out, Mike!
> >
> > A Q6600 is a Kentsfield. I dug one of those up.
> > Indeed, the only idle capabilities it has are HALT
> > and old style MWAIT, and the latter is much more effective.
> > running 3.8 it idles at 75 watts.
> > running 3.8 with idle=nomwait it idles at 100 watts,
> > which is what it will do with 3.9 and later due to the patch below.
> >
> > commit 69fb3676df3329a7142803bb3502fa59dc0db2e3
> > Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > Date: Sun Feb 10 01:38:39 2013 -0500
> >
> > x86 idle: remove mwait_idle() and "idle=mwait" cmdline param
> >
> > Kentsfield proves that patch was based on a fault assumption.
> > Sweet box in its day, ECC memory and everything -- probably still
> > a fair number of them running...
> >
> > Plus, I've found another machine that depends on having an idle=mwait
> > idle loop (A Sony Vaio BIOS SMM code apparently assumes we use it in
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60770)
> >
> > So it looks like I need to (also) restore the simple idle=mwait idle loop
> > to make some machines happy.
>
> Cool, box will definitely be happier.

I assume old-style MWAIT will be activated automatically on such
boxes, there's no need to pass in idle=mwait on the boot command line,
correct?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-10 13:01    [W:0.088 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site