From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.26.193]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89E2B7B7E for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2009 22:40:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:08:18 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs. Message-ID: <20090809120818.GA1338@ucw.cz> References: <20090805142311.553.78286.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> <20090806015855.GA20596@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20090806015855.GA20596@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Cc: "Brown, Len" , Peter Zijlstra , Gautham R Shenoy , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Ingo Molnar , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "Darrick J. Wong" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi! > > Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this > > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU to an arbitrary C-state > > when it is offlined, thereby providing the system administrator a rope to hang > > himself with should he feel the need to do so. > I didn't see the reason why administrator needs to know which state offline cpu > should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears deepest > C-state is already preferred. > Agreed, deepest c-state is always best, there's no need to make it configurable. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751739AbZHIMIa (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 08:08:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751310AbZHIMI3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 08:08:29 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:53148 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751227AbZHIMI2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 08:08:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:08:18 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Shaohua Li Cc: Gautham R Shenoy , Joel Schopp , "Brown, Len" , Peter Zijlstra , Balbir Singh , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ingo Molnar , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Dipankar Sarma , "Darrick J. Wong" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs. Message-ID: <20090809120818.GA1338@ucw.cz> References: <20090805142311.553.78286.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> <20090806015855.GA20596@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090806015855.GA20596@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this > > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU to an arbitrary C-state > > when it is offlined, thereby providing the system administrator a rope to hang > > himself with should he feel the need to do so. > I didn't see the reason why administrator needs to know which state offline cpu > should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears deepest > C-state is already preferred. > Agreed, deepest c-state is always best, there's no need to make it configurable. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html