[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: cpuidle asymmetry (was Re: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5] cpuidle: cpuidle driver for apm)
- To: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:18:56 +0200
- Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx, venki@xxxxxxxxxx, benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:20:56 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 22:17 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Moorestown is already an example of an asymmetric system,
> since its deepest c-state is available on cpu0, but not on cpu1.
> So it needs different tables for each cpu.
wtf are these hardware guys smoking and how the heck are we supposed to
schedule on such a machine? Prefer to keep cpu1 busy while idling cpu0?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
