[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FCE254A.6050504@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:27:06 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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 6/5/2012 7:17 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.
but "cpu hotplug" does not change that.. in fact, cpu hotplug is
implemented as a C state...
and to be specific; power will get removed from the cores one at a time.
you just cannot remove the power from the memory controller until the
last one is off.
--
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