On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:37:13 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:23:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > And if I understand you correctly, then the patches that Ankita > > > posted should help your self-refresh case, along with the > > > originally intended the power-down case and special-purpose use > > > of memory case. > > > > Yeah, I'd hope so once we actually have capable hardware. > > Cool!!! > > So Ankita's patchset might be useful to you at some point, then. > > Does it look like a reasonable implementation? as someone who is working on hardware that is PASR capable right now, I have to admit that our plan was to just hook into the buddy allocator, and use PASR on the top level of buddy (eg PASR off blocks that are free there, and PASR them back on once an allocation required the block to be broken up)..... that looked the very most simple to me. Maybe something much more elaborate is needed, but I didn't see why so far. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
