linux-kernel - Re: Rescheduling interrupts

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:52:36 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@...dus.org.tr>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Rescheduling interrupts


On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:53 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> 
> > that would probably be the case if it's multiple sockets - but for 
> > multiple cores exactly the opposite is true: the sooner _both_ cores 
> > finish processing, the deeper power use the CPU can reach. 
> 
> That's only true on setups where the cores don't have 
> separate sleep states. But that's not generally true anymore.
> e.g. AMD Fam10h has completely separate power planes for
> the cores and I believe newer Intel CPUs can also let their 
> cores go to at least some sleep states independently (although
> the deepest sleep modi still require all cores idle) 

I think we can expect everyone to rapidly evolve towards full
independence of core power states. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if
we eventually get to the point of shutting down individual functional
units like the FPU.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
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/