On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:28:15PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > > For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
> > > CPU state. That is typically
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
> > CPU state. That is typically done by the hypervisor. However, offline
> > operation as defined now al
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > Agreed, I've tried to come with a little ASCII art to depict your
> > > scenairos graphically
> > >
> > >
> >
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Agreed, I've tried to come with a little ASCII art to depict your
> > scenairos graphically
> >
> >
> > ++ don't need (offline)
> > | OS+--
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Dipankar Sarma [2009-08-16 23:56:29]:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It depends on the hypervisor implementation. On pseries (powerpc)
> > > > hypervisor, for example, they are differe
* Dipankar Sarma [2009-08-16 23:56:29]:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > It depends on the hypervisor implementation. On pseries (powerpc)
> > > hypervisor, for example, they are different. By offlining a vcpu
> > > (and in turn shutting a cpu), you wil
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > It depends on the hypervisor implementation. On pseries (powerpc)
> > hypervisor, for example, they are different. By offlining a vcpu
> > (and in turn shutting a cpu), you will actually create a configuration
> > change in the
> > > 2. A low-power state where the guest indicates it doesn't need the
> > > CPU (and can be put in low power state) but doesn't want to give up
> > > its allocated cpu share. IOW, no visible configuration changes.
> > >
> > > So, in any case we would probably want more than one states.
> >
>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:45:18PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > In a native system, I think we should the platform-specific code
> > export what makes sense. That may be just the lowest possible
> > state only. Or may be more than one.
>
> For x86, it is
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> > > platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> > > CPU can handle and o
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> > platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> > CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
> > C-st
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 13:58 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> > platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> > CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
> > C-states ma
Hi!
> May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
> C-states may make sense. Will keeps things simpler in terms of usage
> expecta
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:22:17PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> Also, I don't think using just the ACPI/BIOS supplied states in _CST is
> right thing to do for offline. _CST is meant for C-state and BIOS may
> not include some C-state in _CST if the system manufacturer thinks that
> the lat
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 01:19 -0700, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2009-08-09 15:22:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this
> > > > > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU t
On Sun 2009-08-09 15:22:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday 09 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 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, thereb
* Rafael J. Wysocki [2009-08-09 15:22:02]:
> On Sunday 09 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 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 provid
On Sunday 09 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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 w
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 rea
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
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:48:44PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Shaohua,
>
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:58:55AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:25:53PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > In this patch-series, we propose to extend the CPU-Hotplug infras
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> This was the
> main objection to Venki's deepest sleep state for offline cpus patch.
Well, my main objection was that is was a single raw function pointer
without any management layer around it.
We have the exact same mess with t
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > This was the
> > main objection to Venki's deepest sleep state for offline cpus patch.
>
> Well, my main objection was that is was a single raw function pointer
> withou
Hi Shaohua,
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:58:55AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:25:53PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > In this patch-series, we propose to extend the CPU-Hotplug infrastructure
> > and allow the system administrator to choose the desired state the
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:25:53PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> In this patch-series, we propose to extend the CPU-Hotplug infrastructure
> and allow the system administrator to choose the desired state the CPU should
> go to when it is offlined. We think this approach addresses the concer
* Shaohua Li [2009-08-06 09:58:55]:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:25:53PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > In this patch-series, we propose to extend the CPU-Hotplug infrastructure
> > and allow the system administrator to choose the desired state the CPU
> > should
> > go to when it i
Hi,
RFC not for inclusion
When we perform a CPU-Offline operation today, we do not put the CPU
into the most energy efficient state. On x86, it loops in hlt as opposed to
going to one of the low-power C-states. On pSeries, we call rtas_stop_self()
and hand over the vCPU back to the reso
27 matches
Mail list logo
