RE: acpi_idle: Very idle Core i7 machine never enters C3

From: Yu, Luming
Date: Tue May 25 2010 - 02:04:54 EST




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:43 PM
> To: Philip Langdale
> Cc: Matthew Garrett; Jeff Garrett; Andi Kleen; Linux Kernel Mailing
> List; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yu, Luming; venki@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: acpi_idle: Very idle Core i7 machine never enters C3
>
> > >> I am hopeful that the "right thing to do" is to not look at bm-
> status
> > >> and that perhaps there is a bug where we are looking at it
> > >> "by mistake".
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/58962/ - it seems to be a win.
> >
> > Indeed. This patch does solve the C6 problem. I'm not in a position
> to
> > speak about whether there's any undesirable I/O latency, but it
> > passes the basic sanity check.
> >
> > I have filed https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15886 with
> > my acpi dump - assuming that's still useful.
>
> Luming's patch above basically deletes acpi_idle_bm_check() --
> the BM_STS check -- from the C3 path on all Intel SMP boxes.
> This is effectively the same as my test patch
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/77370/
> that made acpi_idle_bm_check() do nothing.
>
> I'm told by the hardware guys that BM_STS is _not_ always
> a NOP, and so we're not supposed to simply ignore it on C3 --
> though it should be extremely rare that we see it set.

On some platforms like NHM-EX, I was told that it's a NOP,
But I might be given wrong information at that time when I wrote that patch.

IIRC, acpi spec just say it's optional..

Thanks,
Luming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/