* Arjan van de Ven ar...@infradead.org [2009-09-24 13:41:23]:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:33:07 +0200
Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl 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
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:55:49 +0530
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan sva...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I obviously can't speak for p-series cpus, just wanted to point out
that there is no universal truth about offlining saves power.
Hi Arjan,
As you have said, on some cpus the extra effort of
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 07:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I'm still thinking this is a bad idea.
The OS should only know about online/offline.
Use the hypervisor interface to deal with the cpu once its offline.
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
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
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:33:07 +0200
Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl 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.
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 07:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I'm still thinking this is a bad idea.
The OS should only know about online/offline.
Use the hypervisor interface to deal with the cpu once its offline.
That is, I think this interface you propose is a layering violation.
I
On Wed 2009-09-02 07:33:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 15:30 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Hi,
This is the version 2 of the patch series to provide a cpu-offline framework
that enables the administrators choose the state the offline CPU must be put
into when multiple
Hi,
This is the version 2 of the patch series to provide a cpu-offline framework
that enables the administrators choose the state the offline CPU must be put
into when multiple such states are exposed by the underlying architecture.
Version 1 of the Patch can be found here:
