[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Higer latency with dynamic tick (need for an io-ondemand govenor?)
Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> "Andi Kleen" <> writes:
>> Are you talking about x86?

Sorry I was confused because you used the term "C-state" which is normally ACPI (x86/ia64)
specific. If someone says C states I assume ACPI and usually x86 by default
due to lack of deeper sleep states on most ia64s.

> Not sure about the underlying X86 hardware implementation.

On x86 the trend is for the hardware/firmware/SMM doing more and more of this on its own,
as in deciding by itself how deep it wants to sleep.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-20 16:29    [W:0.033 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site