On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:35:13 -0500
Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/14/2007 05:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> so do whatever is necessary to enable dynticks.
> >
> > dynticks' main purpose is to save power, but C1e saves more power.
> > Disabling C1e for dynticks would be a fairly useless default
> > trade off.
> >
>
> What about machines where the BIOS has disabled C1e on CPU 0 but
> left it enabled on CPU 1 ??
Do you mean Linux should enable C1E on CPU 0 if it's detected on CPU 1?
C3 + dynticks make up a better power saver than simply C1E, as far as I
know. Higher C-states should be enabled on such CPUs, as AMD docs say
firmware should either enable C1E or C2 & C3 (it must provide one of
these mutually exclusive options). I take having C1E on the second CPU
but not the first as an attempt on BIOS's part to provide higher
C-states instead of the former. How broken is it, really?
But maybe someone with access to such hardware can tell us what
happens: does he get C2/C3 power states under such circumstances?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
