On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > And because there's then no power saving (but a performance cost), it's > actually a negative for battery life/total energy. Including the UP optimizations we do (ie lock prefix removal)? It's possible that I'm just biased by benchmarks, and it's true that Intel has been getting lots better, but the locking costs are very noticeable performance-wise on some benchmarks. And several CPU's have been held back from going into deepest sleep states by stupid firmware and/or platform bugs. But hey, if it's not going to help, and people have tried it, I guess I'll have to believe it. Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
