From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Luming Yu <luming.yu@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] use acpi_idle_enter_simple if bm_check && !.bm_control
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:29:00 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1007211725530.409@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100419174737.GA13331@srcf.ucam.org>
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:12:41PM +0800, Luming Yu wrote:
>
> > I came across acpi processor idle driver, noticed that we can cut a
> > bit overhead at C3 entry that can improve C3 residency a bit,
> > especially when it has similar kernel config as old RHEL 5 kernel
> > (2.6.18) on systems with as many as 64 logical CPUs. The point of this
> > patch is bm_sts is an optional bit. It never returns 1 on systems with
> > bm_check && !bm_control I tested. Instead, I have observed lower C3
> > residency due to accessing bm_sts and relevant code on a system with
> > 64 logical CPUs with HZ=1000. Please review. If make sense, please
> > apply.
>
> Saves 40W or so on a dual-socket Nehalem system here. Is there a reason
> it wasn't picked up?
The reason it wasn't picked up is because it assumed that the need
for checking BM_STS is identical to the ability to use ARB_DIS.
However, the two are entirely independent. The result is that
with the patch we would stop checking BM_STS for every Core2 Duo
system -- which would be incorrect.
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-21 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-10 6:12 Luming Yu
2010-04-19 17:47 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-07-21 21:29 ` Len Brown [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.00.1007211725530.409@localhost.localdomain \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luming.yu@gmail.com \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®