On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:55:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > 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. I mean at the hardware level. As far as I know, the best we can do at the moment is to put an entire node into self refresh when the CPU hits package C6. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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>