Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:54:58 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: STI, HLT in acpi_cpu_idle_c1 Message-ID: <20040622215458.GB79973@fire.masaclaw.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <200406222134.i5MLYQ9O041828@apollo.backplane.com> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9018@mail.sandvine.com> <200406172333.i5HNXDpd010136@apollo.backplane.com> <200406221708.32433.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200406222134.i5MLYQ9O041828@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 02:34:26PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > : > :On Thursday 17 June 2004 07:33 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :> It kinda sounds like ACPI has bokered the other cpus. I'm not sure > :> why one would even *want* to use ACPI to idle down Xeon's in an MP > :> system, actually :-) > : > :Power and heat savings. > : > :-- > :John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > > All well and nice, but if you want power and heat savings you don't > purchase a big honking SMP box in the first place. > Sure, but what about the larger scale. Put 100 or a 1000 of them in a room and any heat savings make a big difference to your air-conditioning and power distribution.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040622215458.GB79973>