[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52438AA9.3020809@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:15:21 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mgorman@...e.de, dave@...1.net, hannes@...xchg.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, matthew.garrett@...ula.com, riel@...hat.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, willy@...ux.intel.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, lenb@...nel.org, rjw@...k.pl,
gargankita@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
santosh.shilimkar@...com, kosaki.motohiro@...il.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Results] [RFC PATCH v4 00/40] mm: Memory Power Management
On 9/25/2013 4:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Also, the changelogs don't appear to discuss one obvious downside: the
>> latency incurred in bringing a bank out of one of the low-power states
>> and back into full operation. Please do discuss and quantify that to
>> the best of your knowledge.
>
> On Sandy Bridge the memry wakeup overhead is really small. It's on by default
> in most setups today.
btw note that those kind of memory power savings are content-preserving,
so likely a whole chunk of these patches is not actually needed on SNB
(or anything else Intel sells or sold)
--
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