linux-kernel - Re: CPU offline but power consumption increased?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:44:58 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andika Triwidada <andika@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CPU offline but power consumption increased?

> Speaking for all Intel hardware implemented from pre-history until now,
> deep C-states is the best you can do, and there is no special offline
> mode to save more power.

We don't use deep c states currently; just HLT.

Right now it doesn't make much difference because no multi socket
servers do deep C states and secondary cores can normally not go
deep on their own; but if any of this changes this code would
need to be fixed.

But cpu off line is really a special case -- maybe it is even 
possible to do something better on current hardware.

> and if the BIOS is implemented properly, the core will be spinning in the
> deepest available C-state.  Of course, it would probably be more interesting
> to simply leave the core on-line and let it go idle...

I don't see any BIOS call in play_dead()

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/