[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090812115806.GK24339@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:58:06 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Li, Shaohua" <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>,
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!
> May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
> C-states may make sense. Will keeps things simpler in terms of usage
> expectations and possibly reduce the misuse oppurtubity?
Maybe just going to the deepest offline state automatically is the
easiest option?
cpu hotplug/unplug should be rare-enough operation that the latencies
do not really matter, right?
Pavel
--
(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