[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
    On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:10:48 -0700
    > "Paul E. McKenney" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > So once you are down to one CPU, the last CPU shuts the system off,
    > > itself included? Or does the last CPU "run" in a deep idle state
    > > throughout suspend? (My guess is the former, and I am also curious
    > > whether the cache SRAMs are powered off, etc. But figured I should
    > > ask rather than guessing.)
    > they tend to go "off".
    > however I think you're making an assumption that there is a
    > real difference between a deep idle state and "off"....
    > For modern x86 hardware, that assumption isn't really valid.
    > (other than a very very small sram that stores register content in the
    > idle case)

    I am and have been taking you at your word that some systems can reach
    power levels while idle that rival suspended/off. The differences between
    idle and suspend are instead semantic, have been posted here more than
    once, and make themselves felt when the non-suspended system is non-idle,
    even for systems whose deep-idle power approximates that of suspend/off.

    Thanx, Paul

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-15 09:03    [W:0.021 / U:2.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site