[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: RE: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] No C-States any longer...

  • To: Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:31:38 +0800
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc:
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:35:23 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acww0LDAD6zSSyFFQfa/vdG8RbbqsQAB0tNg
  • Thread-topic: RE: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] No C-States any longer...

> From: Carsten Schiers [mailto:carsten@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:36 PM
> >> There is a comment in acpi_processor_get_power_info_default it is
> >> said that all processors need to support C1 at least. So (hypothesis),
> >> if my BIOS is not implemented as specified (neither _CST nor PBLK),
> >>> shouldn't acpi_processor_get_power_info_default also bee called on my
> >> machine? Is the code exiting too early?
> >
> >You can argue that point. It exits at current point because typical BIOS
> >provide either CST or valid FADT/PBLK info. Of course even when ACPI
> >table is broken we can still make a valid C1 entry. But also note that even
> >then such ACPI Cstate information is not gathered, the kernel always
> >invokes hlt when system is idle which achieves the effect. :-)
> After having had some discussion with Gigabyte, I am now sure that the BIOS
> intentionally doesn't implement C-States at all. Gigabyte says, they
> iomplemeted
> Cool'n'Quiet "instead".

great that this is clarified from the vendor. :-)

> In don't share this point, as I think Spec does require either _CST or PBLK.
> Nevertheless, I think to remember that
>   - xenpm did only mention C0 and C1 in the past
>   - but xenpm did so and does not any longer

there're always various ACPI-incompatible boxes in the market, and the reason 
the different behavior may come from the fact that newer kernel more conforms
to the ACPI spec now.

> Eventually, even if it's only cosmetic, something needs to be changed in order
> to reflect that case by setting up C1 in such a case. I am sorry, but I was 
> not
> able to do it.

I agree that from statistics p.o.v, C1/C0 should be always exposed regardless of
whether ACPI is broken.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.