Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:26:33 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Higer latency with dynamic tick (need for an io-ondemand govenor?) |
| |
Woodruff, Richard wrote: > "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org> writes: >> Are you talking about x86? > > ARM (TI-OMAP)
Sorry I was confused because you used the term "C-state" which is normally ACPI (x86/ia64) specific. If someone says C states I assume ACPI and usually x86 by default due to lack of deeper sleep states on most ia64s.
> Not sure about the underlying X86 hardware implementation.
On x86 the trend is for the hardware/firmware/SMM doing more and more of this on its own, as in deciding by itself how deep it wants to sleep.
-Andi
| |