lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler
    On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:44:03AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On 8/17/2012 11:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:01:25AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > >> this is ... a dubiously general statement.
    > >>
    > >> for good power, at least on Intel cpus, you want to spread. Parallelism is efficient.
    > >
    > > Is this really true? In a two-socket system I'd have thought the benefit
    > > of keeping socket 1 in package C3 outweighed the cost of keeping socket
    > > 0 awake for slightly longer.
    >
    > not on Intel
    >
    > you can't enter package c3 either until every one is down.
    > (e.g. memory controller must stay on etc etc)

    I thought that was only PC6 - is there any reason why the package cache
    can't be entirely powered down?

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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-08-17 21:21    [W:2.177 / U:0.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site