From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: cpuidle asymmetry (was Re: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5]
 cpuidle: cpuidle driver for apm)
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:01:32 +0200
Message-ID: <1302015692.2225.1347.camel@twins>
References: <20110323121458.ec7cdaf9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	<4D89CA7D.8080108@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1103231623450.12911@x980>
	<4D8B550D.5000409@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1103250321480.32565@x980>
	<20110325180156.GC19214@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1103302203490.1920@x980>
	<1301577536.4859.249.camel@twins>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104010006210.2797@x980>
	<1301666556.4859.695.camel@twins>
	<20110404143259.GA11525@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110404143259.GA11525@in.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: dipankar@in.ibm.com
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, ak@linux.intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, venki@google.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, arjan@linux.intel.com, Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 20:02 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:02:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >=20
> > > S0i3 on cpu0 can be entered only after cpu1 is already off-line,
> > > among other system hardware dependencies...
> > >=20
> > > So it makes no sense to export S0i3 as a c-state on cpu1.
> > >=20
> > > When cpu1 is online, the scheduler treats it as a normal SMP.
> >=20
> > Dipankar's reply seems to address this issue well.
>=20
> I can't find any Moorestown documentation at the Intel site, but
> thinking about Len's inputs a bit more, it seems there may
> be still a problem asymetry from the scheduler perspective.
>=20
> If cpu0 or cpu1 either of them can be offlined, there is no
> asymetry. If only cpu1 can be offlined, it would mean that
> one cpu may be more efficient depending on how we do
> cpu offlining for power savings. It gets a bit messy.
>=20
> Len, what exacty is the significance of offlining here ?
> Apart from going to C6, what else is needed in cpu1 for
> the chip to go to S0i3 ? Why is idle C6 not enough ?

I don't think offlining is relevant, anybody using that for power
management is doing it wrong, _very_ wrong.