[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610170535.GC25774@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:05:35 +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 09:55:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.
>
> By "finer-grained self-refresh" you mean turning off refresh for banks
> of memory that are not being used, right? If so, this is supported by
> the memory-regions support provided, at least assuming that the regions
> can be aligned with the self-refresh boundaries.
I mean at the hardware level. As far as I know, the best we can do at
the moment is to put an entire node into self refresh when the CPU hits
package C6.
--
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