Re: Higer latency with dynamic tick (need for an io-ondemand govenor?)

[Andi Kleen]

Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> "Andi Kleen" <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Are you talking about x86?
> 
> ARM (TI-OMAP)

Sorry I was confused because you used the term "C-state" which is normally ACPI (x86/ia64) 
specific. If someone says C states I assume ACPI and usually x86 by default
due to lack of deeper sleep states on most ia64s.

> Not sure about the underlying X86 hardware implementation.

On x86 the trend is for the hardware/firmware/SMM doing more and more of this on its own,
as in deciding by itself how deep it wants to sleep.

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/