[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190531161952.dps3grwg4ytrpuqw@treble>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 11:19:52 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/power: Fix 'nosmt' vs. hibernation triple fault
during resume
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > The only question I'd have is if we have data on the power savings
> > difference between hlt and mwait. mwait seems to wake up on a lot of
> > different conditions which might negate its deeper sleep state.
>
> hlt wakes up on basically the same set of events, but has the
> auto-restarting semantics on some of them (especially SMM). So the wakeup
> frequency itself shouldn't really contribute to power consumption
> difference; it's the C-state that mwait allows CPU to enter.
Ok. I reluctantly surrender :-) For your v4:
Reviewed-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
It works as a short term fix, but it's fragile, and it does feel like
we're just adding more duct tape, as Andy said.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists