[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1206051014540.1542-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Asit K Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or
nmi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > I disagree. Deactivating a cpu for power saving is halfway to hotplug
> > anyway. I'd rather unify the two cases, where we can specify how dead a
> > CPU should be, than have individual archs and boards do random hacks.
>
> well on PC's there really is no difference at least;
> idle equals "all power removed" already there.
This doesn't sound right at all. Len Brown has often told us that on
Intel chips, power can't be removed from a package until _all_ the
cores in the package are idle.
Alan Stern
--
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