[PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs.

Shaohua Li shaohua.li at intel.com
Fri Aug 7 11:02:56 EST 2009

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 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 concerns about
> > > determinism as well as transparency, since CPU-Hotplug already provides
> > > notification mechanism which the userspace can listen to for any change
> > > in the configuration and correspondingly readjust any previously set
> > > cpu-affinities.
> > Peter dislikes any approach (including cpuhotplug) which breaks userspace policy,
> > even userspace can get a notification.
> I think Peter's problem was more to do with the kernel offlining the CPUs
> behind the scenes, right ?
> We don't do that in this patch series. The option to offline the CPUs is
> very much with the admin. The patch-series only provides the interface
> that helps the admin choose the state the CPU must reside in when it
> goes offline.
but the goal is to use cpu offline to save power, right? So we still have
Peter's problem.
> > > 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 reason why administrator needs to know which state offline cpu
> > should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears deepest
> > C-state is already preferred.
> We can still provide a sane default value based on what states are
> available and what the BIOS limits us to. Thus we can still use the
> idle-state-offline patch that Venki posted sometime ago, right ?
My original concern about Venki's patch is the C-state limition, but Venki
thought if CPU has the limition, CPU should disable specific C-state, so this
isn't a problem. I had no objection about the infrastructure itself, but just
wonder why we need it.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list