Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > It seems to me that on *some* hardware, a kernel IPI resulting from > rescheduling interrupts shouldn't have any power implications. Consider > a Thinkpad T60, which has a twin-code processor. I believe that with > this hardware both processors always run at the same speed. This means > that running one processor is almost as energy-intensive as running two > processors. Since rescheduling interrupts just starts the "idle" > processor, almost certainly while the other processor is working, > rescheduling interrupts should be in this very-cheap situation.
this isn't a correct assumption. While the cores run at the same frequency *when they run*, when idle, the clock stops for one of them .... and that does save power. _______________________________________________ Power mailing list [email protected] http://www.bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power
