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. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
