Re: [Results] [RFC PATCH v4 00/40] mm: Memory Power Management

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 9/25/2013 4:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Also, the changelogs don't appear to discuss one obvious downside: the
> > latency incurred in bringing a bank out of one of the low-power states
> > and back into full operation.  Please do discuss and quantify that to
> > the best of your knowledge.
>
> On Sandy Bridge the memry wakeup overhead is really small. It's on by default
> in most setups today.

btw note that those kind of memory power savings are content-preserving,
so likely a whole chunk of these patches is not actually needed on SNB
(or anything else Intel sells or sold)
--
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/