From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:59:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory Power Management In-Reply-To: <20110610151121.GA2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1306499498-14263-1-git-send-email-ankita@in.ibm.com> <20110528005640.9076c0b1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110609185259.GA29287@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110610151121.GA2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20110610155954.GA25774@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:11:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Of course, on a server, you could get similar results by having a very > large amount of memory (say 256GB) and a workload that needed all the > memory only occasionally for short periods, but could get by with much > less (say 8GB) the rest of the time. I have no idea whether or not > anyone actually has such a system. For the server case, the low hanging fruit would seem to be finer-grained self-refresh. At best we seem to be able to do that on a per-CPU socket basis right now. The difference between active and self-refresh would seem to be much larger than the difference between self-refresh and powered down. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org