[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150519085017.GA4641@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:50:17 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, "Li, Tony" <Tony.Li@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Mwait usage on AMD processors
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:25:53PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> Apology that cause to misunderstand. It's not as same as intel.
> Intel is able to go to C1E like you said, the C1E has less power
> consumption than C1 on Intel platform.
You still misunderstand - I'm not talking about Intel platforms here but
AMD ones. On AMD we never enter idle with MWAIT - we do HLT which enters
C1 and then the hw enters C1E when a bunch of conditions are fulfilled.
> The faster waiting exit speed. But it's hard to test the improvement,
> do you have any idea? It's told by HW designer.
You can test the improvement with a special setup only. Unless you can
read out power consumption of a box while it is idle.
The exit-idle speed only does not suffice to switch to MWAIT though,
IMHO. I think power consumption in idle should be the relevant metric
here.
> Current CPU, power consumption cannot go to deeper low power state
> (C1) via mwaitx/mwait. But HW designers will implement it in future
> processors.
So future CPUs we will switch to MWAIT. I don't see a problem with that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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