[Steinar H. Gunderson] > How accurate is this tool? I saw that hald-addon-cpuf (which I > assume is short for ...-cpufreq), more precisely in > "queue_delayed_work_on (delayed_work_timer_fn)" stood for a lot of > wakeups, so I killed it. Yet it keeps running up and down the > lists...
It is claimed to be fairly accurate. I recommend asking on the #powertop IRC channel if you need details. > Apart from that, most of my time seems to be spent in i945 > interrupts, but I guess those are needed for my display somehow. :-) The Tips and Tricks page mentioned a bug in i945 running interrupts every frame even if the interrupt isn't used for anything. Patch to fix it is available on the project web page, though the project web page seem to be down at the moment. > - 517.2 wakeups-from-idle per second, with tickless kernel :-/ That is rather high if the machine is idle. It is supposed to be around 10 on a well configured system. :) Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
