On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 19:24 +0000, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:05:18 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:07:17 -0500 > > Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 08:12 -0500, Jerone Young wrote: > >> > # HG changeset patch > >> > # User Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # Date 1206969060 18000 > >> > # Node ID 10aea37177130bbe5de7bee6ec06d9010bc5da1f # Parent > >> > 1506aa38ddabb0bf73fff3ac3f3db5f9ef6458cc Add idle power save for ppc > >> > 4xx > >> > > >> > This patch sets the wait state MSR when power_save is called in > >> > cpu_idle loop for ppc4xx. This is mainly to help out virtualization > >> > solutions such as KVM. This way the virtualization soultions are able > >> > to tell if the guest kernel is idle. > >> > > >> > I have tested this on hardware & KVM virtual guest. > >> > >> I'm not overly thrilled with adding this to all of 4xx. It doesn't > >> actually save much power at all (1% on a project that actually measured > >> it with an amp meter recently) and there's really no other benefit to > >> doing it outside of the virtual guest case. > > So it slightly helps hardware, and it helps virtualization a *lot*. > What's the problem?
There's 0 publicly available documentation on exactly what "Wait State Enable" means other than the description for the MSR register bit in the 4xx UM. I'm a very paranoid person. Explain to me what it really provides with some kind of concrete numbers on real hardware and I'll think about it as the default. Until then, I think a Kconfig option (or DT property) is acceptable for now. I didn't say "no", I just said "make it optional." > >> I'm assuming you pass a dtb to the virtual guest when you start it up. > >> Could you define a property in the CPU node there that can be parsed to > >> use the power_save function instead of always making it the default? > > > > Actually, you probably don't want this as a property in the device tree. > > It doesn't describe hardware. A Kconfig option might be warranted > > though. > > There will be a device tree binding for hypervisor properties, so if it's > not always enabled, having a hypervisor node (for any hypervisor) in the > device tree would be an indicator. Far better than a Kconfig option, at > any rate. But you want this in the guests, right? Not the hypervisor... josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
