[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301666556.4859.695.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:02:36 +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 Fri, 2011-04-01 at 00:09 -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?
>
> they are smoking micro-amps:-)
Has anybody told them that pushing lots of logic into software generally
burns more amps because it keeps the thing running longer?
> S0i3 on cpu0 can be entered only after cpu1 is already off-line,
> among other system hardware dependencies...
>
> So it makes no sense to export S0i3 as a c-state on cpu1.
>
> When cpu1 is online, the scheduler treats it as a normal SMP.
Dipankar's reply seems to address this issue well.
--
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