Continuing from this post I want to show how the choice of a kernel version can have an important impact on the energy consumed by a computer (in my case, a Lenovo x200s).
I've been working on the battery quite often lately and I have noticed that the power consumption can vary quite a bit from kernel to kernel. This was of course a very subjective appreciation as the load could vary, the number of firefox tabs, the task I was doing or even how fast did I type.
The other day, however, after updating to kernel 2.6.38 i realized that idling, the computer barely went under 7W. I remember perfectly that "before", it could idle at aroung 6.0W, even with the wifi on, and now it was off. I decided to try an older version, and decided for 2.6.34. This is because from 2.6.35 to 2.6.37 there has been a very nasty bug that prevented my Intel Wifi 5300 agn card from injecting packets do to the famous -1 bug. Yes, I do audit my own wifi very often, why you ask? ;)
So I hacked the PKGBUILD file a bit and installed a custom 126.96.36.199 kernel along with my custom 2.6.38 one. I booted the laptop, turned the wifi off, closed Dropbox (powertop doesn't like it) and let it sit idle for a while. After a few minutes I closed the lid, previously deactivating sleep-on-close, to see how turning the screen completely off affects thigs. You can see the results on the following graph:
The result was so different that I used the .config from the 2.6.34 kernel to recompile the .38 and see maybe I missed something. As you can see from the blue line, that is not the case, the .38 kernel just consumes consistently 1W (~20%) more than the .34 version...
Take this results as they are: two different kernel versions with a particular custom configuration on a particular hardware.
I am NOT saying that kernel 2.6.34 is more energy-efficient than 2.6.38 as a general rule.
I AM saying that some kernel versions are more efficient than others on some hardware - test your versions on your hardware and pick the one that works best for you.