[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301577536.4859.249.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:18:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
venki@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: cpuidle asymmetry (was Re: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5] cpuidle: cpuidle
driver for apm)
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 22:17 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Moorestown is already an example of an asymmetric system,
> since its deepest c-state is available on cpu0, but not on cpu1.
> So it needs different tables for each cpu.
wtf are these hardware guys smoking and how the heck are we supposed to
schedule on such a machine? Prefer to keep cpu1 busy while idling cpu0?
--
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