Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 1/2: cpufreq/PowerNow! in Xen: Time and platform changes

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31/8/07 03:42, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> d) I guess final power saving of cpufreq (either approach) is not obvious,
> since average CPU utilization should be higher than native which is the
> goal of virtualization. C-state may be more interesting.

Yes!

I would love to see some C-state support in Xen, both for normal idle-loop
execution and, as further work, deeper sleeps for hot-unplugged CPUs (which
can be under control of management/performance tools in dom0).

In the now prevalent multi-core environments, I'll be surprised if it's not
better to deep-sleep whole cores rather than run them all at continually
varying half speeds. And, simultaneously with making C-states a viable
power-saving model, I think multi-core makes it harder to decide what the
'right' per-cpu cpu frequency changes should be.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel