This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


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

To: Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] No C-States any longer...
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:12:22 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:13:34 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <27407493.491308206873767.JavaMail.root@uhura>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <27407493.491308206873767.JavaMail.root@uhura>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acwr8VEIHD37z+UuSgCXlPM0L3woQwAAtgOg
Thread-topic: RE: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] No C-States any longer...
> From: Carsten Schiers [mailto:carsten@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:48 PM
> Maybe a dump question, but in the beginning of our discussion, we had:
> >> In drivers/scpi/processor_idle.c:
> ...
> >> On a working Intel machine, it will go through it like this:
> >>
> >>   - acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst, which returns 0
> >>   - acpi_processor_get_power_info_default
> >>   - later acpi_processor_power_verify will find some c-states
> >
> >this is expected sequence
> >
> >>
> >> On my non-working AMD machine, it will go through like this:
> >>   - acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst, which returns -ENODEV
> >>   - acpi_processor_get_power_info_fadt, which also return -ENODEV
> >>   - this result is returned
> 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
when such ACPI Cstate information is not gathered, the kernel always
invokes hlt when system is idle which achieves the effect. :-)


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>