riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) writes:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 stewart@neuron.com wrote:
> [snip whine]
>
> > I've consistently re-produced this on my Dell Latitude CS laptop. I'm
> > wondering if this will reduce battery life since the CPU is constantly
> > being loaded instead of properly idled.
>
> What do you suppose the 'idled' in 'kapm-idled' stands for?
We know it was an attempt to stop people complaining about the fact that
"kapm" was hogging the CPU. Looks like it doesn't work.
At the time, I had a look at the kernel source, and came to the conclusion
that there was no easy way for the cpu accounting in "do_process_times()"
to automatically assign ticks from a particular process to the idle
process.
However, would it be possible for apm_cpu_idle() to periodically assign
the values for per_cpu_*time for the kernel thread to the idle process?
This isn't a performance critical part of the kernel, and would lead to
less false reports (as above).
-- `O O' | Nick.Holloway@pyrites.org.uk // ^ \\ | http://www.pyrites.org.uk/ - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST