Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:40:37 EST

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: how to capture long oops w/o having second machine"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> Technical merits and voter intent aside, this behavior is misleading and
> inconsistent with previous kernels. Tools like top or a CPU dock applet show
> a constantly loaded CPU. Hacking them to deduct the load from 'kapm-idled'
> seems like the wrong answer.

I guess we should just put even normal idle thread to be visible in
ps. It is cleaner design, anyway.
Pavel

-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: how to capture long oops w/o having second machine"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST