Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752186AbZIXLla (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:41:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751884AbZIXLl3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:41:29 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:58976 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751828AbZIXLl3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:41:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:41:23 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Gautham R Shenoy , Joel Schopp , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Dipankar Sarma , Balbir Singh , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpu: pseries: Offline state framework. Message-ID: <20090924134123.4acd1adf@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1253791987.7695.153.camel@twins> References: <20090828095741.10641.32053.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> <1251869611.7547.38.camel@twins> <1253753307.7103.356.camel@pasglop> <1253778667.7695.130.camel@twins> <1253781508.7103.437.camel@pasglop> <1253791987.7695.153.camel@twins> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1818 Lines: 40 On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:33:07 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 18:38 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > I don't quite follow your logic here. This is useful for more > > > > than just hypervisors. For example, take the HV out of the > > > > picture for a moment and imagine that the HW has the ability to > > > > offline CPU in various power levels, with varying latencies to > > > > bring them back. > > > > > > cpu-hotplug is an utter slow path, anybody saying latency and > > > hotplug in the same sentence doesn't seem to grasp either or both > > > concepts. > > > > Let's forget about latency then. Let's imagine I want to set a CPU > > offline to save power, vs. setting it offline -and- opening the back > > door of the machine to actually physically replace it :-) > > If the hardware is capable of physical hotplug, then surely powering > the socket down saves most power and is the preferred mode? btw just to take away a perception that generally powering down sockets help; it does not help for all cpus. Some cpus are so efficient in idle that the incremental gain one would get by "offlining" a core is just not worth it (in fact, in x86, it's the same thing) I obviously can't speak for p-series cpus, just wanted to point out that there is no universal truth about "offlining saves power". -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/