Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:03:45 +0530
From: Ankita Garg <ankita@in.ibm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thomas.abraham@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory
 Power Management
Message-ID: <20110610173345.GA8434@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Ankita Garg <ankita@in.ibm.com>
References: <1306499498-14263-1-git-send-email-ankita@in.ibm.com>
 <20110528005640.9076c0b1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20110609185259.GA29287@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <BANLkTinxeeSby_+tta8EhzCg3VbD6+=g+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110610151121.GA2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610155954.GA25774@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610165529.GC2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610170535.GC25774@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610171939.GE2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110610171939.GE2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1893
Lines: 40

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:19:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:05:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:55:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > For the server case, the low hanging fruit would seem to be 
> > > > finer-grained self-refresh. At best we seem to be able to do that on a 
> > > > per-CPU socket basis right now. The difference between active and 
> > > > self-refresh would seem to be much larger than the difference between 
> > > > self-refresh and powered down.
> > > 
> > > By "finer-grained self-refresh" you mean turning off refresh for banks
> > > of memory that are not being used, right?  If so, this is supported by
> > > the memory-regions support provided, at least assuming that the regions
> > > can be aligned with the self-refresh boundaries.
> > 
> > I mean at the hardware level. As far as I know, the best we can do at 
> > the moment is to put an entire node into self refresh when the CPU hits 
> > package C6.
> 
> But this depends on the type of system and CPU family, right?  If you
> can say, which hardware are you thinking of?  (I am thinking of ARM.)
> 

And also whether the memory controller is on-chip or off-chip ? As
package could be in C6, but other packages could be refering memory
connected to this socket right ? And as Paul mentioned, at this point
the ARM SoCs that have support for memory power management, have only a
single node.

-- 
Regards,
Ankita Garg (ankita@in.ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM India Systems & Technology Labs,
Bangalore, India
--
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/