Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:23:21 +0530
From: Ankita Garg <ankita@in.ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 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: <20110615165321.GC23151@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Ankita Garg <ankita@in.ibm.com>
References: <20110610165529.GC2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610170535.GC25774@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610171939.GE2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610172307.GA27630@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610175248.GF2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610180807.GB28500@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610184738.GG2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610192329.GA30496@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20110610193713.GJ2230@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110610200233.5ddd5a31@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110610200233.5ddd5a31@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1732
Lines: 48

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:02:33PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:37:13 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:23:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > And if I understand you correctly, then the patches that Ankita
> > > > posted should help your self-refresh case, along with the
> > > > originally intended the power-down case and special-purpose use
> > > > of memory case.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'd hope so once we actually have capable hardware.
> > 
> > Cool!!!
> > 
> > So Ankita's patchset might be useful to you at some point, then.
> > 
> > Does it look like a reasonable implementation?
> 
> as someone who is working on hardware that is PASR capable right now,
> I have to admit that our plan was to just hook into the buddy allocator,
> and use PASR on the top level of buddy (eg PASR off blocks that are
> free there, and PASR them back on once an allocation required the block
> to be broken up)..... that looked the very most simple to me.
> 

The maximum order in buddy allocator is by default 1k pages. Isn't this
too small a granularity to track blocks that might comprise a PASR unit? 

> Maybe something much more elaborate is needed, but I didn't see why so
> far.
> 
> 

-- 
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/