Hi! > > > Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this > > > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU to an arbitrary C-state > > > when it is offlined, thereby providing the system administrator a rope to > > > hang > > > himself with should he feel the need to do so. > > I didn't see the reason why administrator needs to know which state offline > > cpu > > should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears > > deepest > > C-state is already preferred. > > Yes that is what we would expect, but the deepest sleep state may be > restricted by BIOS or other system level parameters. This was the > main objection to Venki's deepest sleep state for offline cpus > patch.
'May be restricted'? Kernel already needs to know about that restriction, just do the right thing... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
