[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610155954.GA25774@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:59:54 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, thomas.abraham@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory
Power Management
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:11:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Of course, on a server, you could get similar results by having a very
> large amount of memory (say 256GB) and a workload that needed all the
> memory only occasionally for short periods, but could get by with much
> less (say 8GB) the rest of the time. I have no idea whether or not
> anyone actually has such a system.
For the server case, the low hanging fruit would seem to be
finer-grained self-refresh. At best we seem to be able to do that on a
per-CPU socket basis right now. The difference between active and
self-refresh would seem to be much larger than the difference between
self-refresh and powered down.
--
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