Bug 352791

Summary: iwl3945 causes unnecessary wakeups
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Julian Sikorski <belegdol>
Component: kernelAssignee: John W. Linville <linville>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 9CC: cebbert, davej, linville
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-06 23:53:30 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Julian Sikorski 2007-10-25 17:18:09 UTC
Description of problem:
iwl3945 generates about ~15 wakeups per second, even when network is down. It's
more than 10, so powertop reports it in bold

13,7% ( 10,8)       <interrupt> : iwl3945

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.6.23.1-26.fc8

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. load iwl3945
2. disable network
3. start powertop
  
Actual results:
interrupts are generated

Expected results:
preserving more attery power

Comment 1 John W. Linville 2007-11-09 22:28:13 UTC
What do you see as the standard to meet here?

Comment 2 Julian Sikorski 2007-11-10 09:32:36 UTC
I think that disabling network with NetworkManager should take iwl3945 down from
the top of the list, similarly as using the kill switch does. Intel chose 10
wakeups per second as a threshold, so I believe we should stick to that. Note
that I am no expert and have no idea how many wakeups per second are required
for the hardware to work properly.

Comment 3 John W. Linville 2008-02-25 21:01:35 UTC
http://bughost.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1617

Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 03:44:04 UTC
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 5 John W. Linville 2009-01-06 23:53:30 UTC
I don't find this to be a problem with 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.i686...