[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100816160911.GA3479@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:09:11 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, david@...g.hm,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com, david-b@...bell.net,
James.Bottomley@...e.de, swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> they tend to go "off".
>
> however I think you're making an assumption that there is a
> real difference between a deep idle state and "off"....
>
> For modern x86 hardware, that assumption isn't really valid.
> (other than a very very small sram that stores register content in the
> idle case)
Really? I thought the TSC stopped in suspend. Does having a package go
into C6 mean that the RAM goes into self-refresh?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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