Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Another Linux Kernel Power Problem

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    My tests aren't invalid - as I have said many times, the kernel isn't responsible for tuning itself for power management.
    Yes, it's not the kernel's responsibility to tune itself for any particular workload.

    But if there's a clear, objective regression with the defaults, is that not a bug? If power usage increases, but performance does not, is that not a bug, even if you don't see it in a custom configuration?

    Comment


    • #32
      It should not be hard to bisect, maybe i can do it sometime in the week-end, it only takes some tens of full kernel builds

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        Yes, it's not the kernel's responsibility to tune itself for any particular workload.

        But if there's a clear, objective regression with the defaults, is that not a bug? If power usage increases, but performance does not, is that not a bug, even if you don't see it in a custom configuration?
        It is neither a regression, nor a bug - even if Michael says it is. You simply can't look at things that way - because it doesn't make sense.

        Using this sort of logic it would be safe to say that if kernel 3.7 used more power than 1.0 that it was a regression - when it would just be due to the additional work the kernel needed to do to support new functionality in the kernel.

        It is completely silly to perform these sorts of tests, they benefit no-one except Mr. Larabel.

        Comment


        • #34
          I find it really hard to believe 3.6 enables some new functionality that takes 6-8 watts.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            I find it really hard to believe 3.6 enables some new functionality that takes 6-8 watts.
            There isn't any new functionality that takes 6-8 watts, nor is there any bug that takes 6-8 watts. Phoronix needed more dimes, hence this article.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by fewt View Post
              There isn't any new functionality that takes 6-8 watts, nor is there any bug that takes 6-8 watts. Phoronix needed more dimes, hence this article.
              I wonder why he's still on this forum is all he does is complain about Larabel -- oh wait, it's called trolling.

              Now, can we get back on topic?

              Btw, links posted so far:
              https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=149901
              https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?id=22089 (German)
              https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743
              https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48721
              Last edited by halo9en; 12-12-2012, 01:31 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by halo9en View Post
                I wonder why he's still on this forum is all he does is complain about Larabel -- oh wait, it's called trolling.

                Now, can we get back on topic?

                Btw, links posted so far:
                https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=149901
                https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?id=22089 (German)
                https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743
                https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48721
                Disagreeing isn't trolling moron. Your links are unrelated to the Phoronix article, with one exception - probably the forum post that caused this article to be written.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by fewt View Post
                  Disagreeing isn't trolling moron. Your links are unrelated to the Phoronix article, with one exception - probably the forum post that caused this article to be written.
                  Ok, I'll bite, troll. Complaining about ad revenues and repeating post after post that Larabel is <insert insult here>, spamming about your little distro and your websites, and resorting to personal insults qualifies as troll behavior that serves to shut down any civil dialogue. There are other websites if you don't like this one, you know.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by halo9en View Post
                    Ok, I'll bite, troll. Complaining about ad revenues and repeating post after post that Larabel is <insert insult here>, spamming about your little distro and your websites, and resorting to personal insults qualifies as troll behavior that serves to shut down any civil dialogue. There are other websites if you don't like this one, you know.
                    zomglol I bet you used both brain cells to type that, didn'tchya.

                    I didn't intend to shut down any civil dialog - I'm just calling it what it is - crap. I even provided evidence. If that's a problem for you, grow some technical skills and tell my why I'm wrong without referencing a forum post and a patch that injects wait states into kernel functions.

                    Where is the kernel mailing list post that confirms the bug - or even Michael's kernel mailing list post that lets them know the potential bug even exists.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X