2.6.24 still causes 1000Hz wakeups on x86_64

[Mike Cronenworth]

-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re:2.6.24 still causes 1000Hz wakeups on x86_64
From: Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com>
To: mike at cchtml.com, For users of Fedora <fedora-list at redhat.com>
Date: 03/15/2008 08:21 PM

> On 15/03/2008, Mike Cronenworth <mike at cchtml.com> wrote:
>> What's the deal? The tickless kernel shouldn't be causing wakeups at
>>  idle, correct?
>>
>>  On a Pentium 4 3ghz HT machine, 2.6.24 shows very little wakeups
>>  occuring, but on my Core 2 Duo 2.1ghz machine I'm getting over 1000
>>  wakeups and it's keeping one core fully awake.
>>
>>  powertop output:
>>  Top causes for wakeups:
>>   88.4% (1000.0)          events/0 : run_workqueue (ir_timer)
>>    5.5% ( 62.0)       <interrupt> : uhci_hcd:usb3, ahci, nvidia
>>    1.2% ( 13.2)       <interrupt> : uhci_hcd:usb4, libata
>>    1.1% ( 12.0)   <kernel module> : usb_hcd_poll_rh_status (rh_timer_func)
>>    0.9% ( 10.0)     <kernel core> : ehci_irq (ehci_watchdog)
>>    0.5% (  5.2)   thunderbird-bin : futex_wait (hrtimer_wakeup)
>>
>>  On my P4 machine, "events/0 : run_workqueue" is further down on the list
>>  and isn't causing major wakeups.
>>
>>  Both test machines are using Fedora 8. Latest updates. XFCE desktop. No
>>  process or applications are running (besides Thunderbird, obviously).
>>  Google searching resulted in nothing positive. Am I the only one?
>>
> 
> On my intel core 2 duo laptop, I don't see the problem you report:
> 
> Wakeups-from-idle per second : 177.2    interval: 10.0s
> no ACPI power usage estimate available
> 
> Top causes for wakeups:
>   35.2% ( 58.5)      npviewer.bin : schedule_timeout (process_timeout)
>   26.9% ( 44.6)      <kernel IPI> : Rescheduling interrupts
>    7.8% ( 13.0)       <interrupt> : iwl3945
>    5.2% (  8.6)       <interrupt> : libata
>    3.8% (  6.3)       file-roller : schedule_timeout (process_timeout)
>    2.8% (  4.7)                 X : do_setitimer (it_real_fn)
> 
> 
> But you're probably seeing a legitimate bug (perhaps incorrect boot
> time selection of clock source or something). It's probably worth
> reporting this as a bug with as much detail about your hardware as you
> can (lspci -vv etc).
> 
> Jonathan.
> 


Thanks, I have added a new bug: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437672


>>  Regards,
>>  Michael
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  fedora-list mailing list
>>  fedora-list at redhat.com
>>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>>