[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090809120818.GA1338@ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:08:18 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs.
Hi!
> > Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this
> > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU to an arbitrary C-state
> > when it is offlined, thereby providing the system administrator a rope to hang
> > himself with should he feel the need to do so.
> I didn't see the reason why administrator needs to know which state offline cpu
> should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears deepest
> C-state is already preferred.
>
Agreed, deepest c-state is always best, there's no need to make it configurable.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists