| To: | "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes |
| From: | "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:31:18 +0800 |
| Delivery-date: | 2007年9月01日 06:31:49 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <C2FF0679.D20F%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <D470B4E54465E3469E2ABBC5AFAC390F013B21B5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C2FF0679.D20F%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | Acfqh8RwaTy8r4iaT0y7Njlwu+54dgAROIeQAAbzeNkAABsToAABWQIjAB9V6qAAErBLqwAKHGtwAAEaJJoAEo/UwAAWs08+AATSlUA= |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes |
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: 2007年9月1日 19:07 > >On 1/9/07 01:23, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Does this affect the available C states, or the current C state of a CPU? >I >>> suppose it's the former that matters, since an attempt to deep-sleep >may >>> start to fail, which would lead to increased power consumption? >> >> Just affect the available C-states and Xen re-evaluates to get new list >> and thus new decision. Actually that event brings Xen back to C0 out >> of any C1...Cn. When Xen starts to handle that event, the CPU is >always >> in C0 as a running state. :-) > >There's only one 'ACPI interrupt line' though, and presumably the re-eval >happens in dom0 somewhere, sometime later, and possibly on a >different CPU >from the one that took the interrupt. What happens if you try and enter a >C >state that is no longer available? > > -- Keir Yes, this is even true on native. SCI happens on one CPU with another CPU is decided to enter some unavailable C-state at the point. I guess hardware should tolerate such invalid request like taking it as a no-op or choosing a closest one. Software can anyway issue an invalid request to break report from hardware... Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][Retry 1] 4/4: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: PowerNow! changes , Keir Fraser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes , Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes , Keir Fraser |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes , Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |