On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:11:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Of course, on a server, you could get similar results by having a very > > large amount of memory (say 256GB) and a workload that needed all the > > memory only occasionally for short periods, but could get by with much > > less (say 8GB) the rest of the time. I have no idea whether or not > > anyone actually has such a system. > > For the server case, the low hanging fruit would seem to be > finer-grained self-refresh. At best we seem to be able to do that on a > per-CPU socket basis right now. The difference between active and > self-refresh would seem to be much larger than the difference between > self-refresh and powered down. By "finer-grained self-refresh" you mean turning off refresh for banks of memory that are not being used, right? If so, this is supported by the memory-regions support provided, at least assuming that the regions can be aligned with the self-refresh boundaries. Or am I missing your point? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>