[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610180807.GB28500@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:08:07 +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 10:52:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I haven't seen too many ARM servers with 256GB of RAM :) I'm mostly
> > looking at this from an x86 perspective.
>
> But I have seen ARM embedded systems with CPU power consumption in
> the milliwatt range, which greatly reduces the amount of RAM required
> to get significant power savings from this approach. Three orders
> of magnitude less CPU power consumption translates (roughly) to three
> orders of magnitude less memory required -- and embedded devices with
> more than 256MB of memory are quite common.
I'm not saying that powering down memory isn't a win, just that in the
server market we're not even getting unused memory into self refresh at
the moment. If we can gain that hardware capability then sub-node zoning
means that we can look at allocating (and migrating?) RAM in such a way
as to get a lot of the win that we'd gain from actually cutting the
power, without the added overhead of actually shrinking our working set.
--
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