From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:05:35 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory
	Power Management
In-Reply-To: <20110610165529.GC2230@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>
	<BANLkTinxeeSby_+tta8EhzCg3VbD6+=g+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110610151121.GA2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20110610155954.GA25774@srcf.ucam.org>
	<20110610165529.GC2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20110610170535.GC25774@srcf.ucam.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:55:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> By "finer-grained self-refresh" you mean turning off refresh for banks
> of memory that are not being used, right?  If so, this is supported by
> the memory-regions support provided, at least assuming that the regions
> can be aligned with the self-refresh boundaries.

I mean at the hardware level. As far as I know, the best we can do at 
the moment is to put an entire node into self refresh when the CPU hits 
package C6.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org