[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F192F7F17@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:18:42 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan Dan De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or
nmi
> I'm working on a proper state machine driven online/offline sequence,
> where you can put the cpu into an intermediate state which avoids
> bringing it down completely. This is enough to get the full
> powersaving benefits w/o having to go through all the synchronization
> states of a full online/offline. That will shorten the onlining time
> of an previously offlined cpu to almost nothing.
Will this also be a step towards Fenghua's goal of being able to
take cpu#0 away. I.e. will your state machine be fully symmetric
and allow for cpu#0 to enter this intermediate mostly-offline state?
-Tony
--
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