[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200908091522.02898.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:22:02 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
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.
On Sunday 09 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.
Unless it doesn't work.
Rafael
--
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