On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:44:03AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 8/17/2012 11:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:01:25AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> this is ... a dubiously general statement. > >> > >> for good power, at least on Intel cpus, you want to spread. Parallelism is > >> efficient. > > > > Is this really true? In a two-socket system I'd have thought the benefit > > of keeping socket 1 in package C3 outweighed the cost of keeping socket > > 0 awake for slightly longer. > > not on Intel > > you can't enter package c3 either until every one is down. > (e.g. memory controller must stay on etc etc)
I thought that was only PC6 - is there any reason why the package cache can't be entirely powered down? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
