Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpu: pseries: Offline state framework.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:33:07 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 18:38 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I don't quite follow your logic here. This is useful for more
than just hypervisors. For example, take the HV out of the
picture for a moment and imagine that the HW has the ability to
offline CPU in various power levels, with varying latencies to
bring them back.

cpu-hotplug is an utter slow path, anybody saying latency and
hotplug in the same sentence doesn't seem to grasp either or both
concepts.

Let's forget about latency then. Let's imagine I want to set a CPU
offline to save power, vs. setting it offline -and- opening the back
door of the machine to actually physically replace it :-)

If the hardware is capable of physical hotplug, then surely powering
the socket down saves most power and is the preferred mode?

btw just to take away a perception that generally powering down sockets
help; it does not help for all cpus. Some cpus are so efficient in idle
that the incremental gain one would get by "offlining" a core is just
not worth it
(in fact, in x86, it's the same thing)

I obviously can't speak for p-series cpus, just wanted to point out
that there is no universal truth about "offlining saves power".

--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages