[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120817184705.GB13369@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:47:05 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: preeti <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in
scheduler
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:44:03AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 11:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:01:25AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >> this is ... a dubiously general statement.
> >>
> >> for good power, at least on Intel cpus, you want to spread. Parallelism is efficient.
> >
> > Is this really true? In a two-socket system I'd have thought the benefit
> > of keeping socket 1 in package C3 outweighed the cost of keeping socket
> > 0 awake for slightly longer.
>
> not on Intel
>
> you can't enter package c3 either until every one is down.
> (e.g. memory controller must stay on etc etc)
I thought that was only PC6 - is there any reason why the package cache
can't be entirely powered down?
--
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