Bug 352791

Summary:	iwl3945 causes unnecessary wakeups
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Julian Sikorski <belegdol>
Component:	kernel	Assignee:	John W. Linville <linville>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	9	CC:	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:
Embargoed:

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...