[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: Allow limiting the max C-state sub-state
On 07/23/2014 08:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 07.07.14 at 17:14, <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:max_csubstate is implemented in the same way as max_cstate. However, given the states in the Bay Trail patch (specifically C6N-BYT and C6S-BYT), this is clearly insufficient. How do you think max_csubstate should limit the substate? Should it be something like a max_csubstate = 2 permits the first and second substates?It's not at all clear to me how to properly translate the CPU internal state identifiers to/from command line option values, in a forward compatible manner. Well, given that Xen treats the cpuidle_state array as a linear sequence of states, and they are ordered by exit latency/target residency, one approach is to have the command-line parameters control how deep down into the state array the processor is allowed to travel, as was my first approach. I know you rejected this before because it was hardware-specific and broke the notion of a C-state but I still feel it's the simplest solution given that any other way of mapping to CPU internal states is likely to be more complex and even more hardware dependent... Regards -- Ross Lagerwall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |