Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Lennie View Post
    I say, let's start with CoreBoot, I'm more than willing to just buy AMD if that solves any problems:

    http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/05/05...e-on-coreboot/
    Let's hope AMD will use Coreboot not only for its embedded solutions, but also for the desktop ones (the future Bulldozer line and beyond). And also that motherboard vendors follow example.

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    The good news though is that at least one major OEM is preparing to ship Coreboot on select products beginning late in Q3 (September) or in Q4 (October through December) of this calendar year. This is information I have received from a reliable source that's at Computex Taipei this week.
    *crosses fingers*

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      Good job isolating it down Michael, it goes a long way of refewting some claims that a regression doesn't exist.
      Nice dig at me personally, but all this "proves" is that Michael found code doing it's job.

      Calling this a "regression" rather than a method to work around a badly implemented BIOS is silly.

      This is not a "regression". You can claim that I'm wrong, but you can't prove it because I am not wrong. This problem impacts a very tiny subset of systems with a bad BIOS implementation that keeps ASPM control within the BIOS. If you read the patch it becomes clear that this behavior is by design meaning that it is A: not a regression and B: exactly what I implied when I said that it impacts a limited number of machines if any.

      Change the code such that we
      explicitly clear ASPM if the FADT indicates that ASPM isn't supported,
      and make sure we tidy up appropriately on device removal in order to deal
      with the hotplug case. If ASPM is disabled because the BIOS doesn't hand
      over control then we won't touch the registers.
      ACPI FADT declares the system doesn't support PCIe ASPM, so disable it
      - http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kerne...ec550c13b8fe72

      Something of interest to all of your readers would be that this patch actually fixed problems with systems crashing when ASPM was enabled on systems where the BIOS registered that it wasn't available.

      The patch that Michael is calling a regression actually corrected those issues.

      Read about it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681017

      More here: http://lwn.net/Articles/449648/

      Even more here: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/449448/95c739f46051924f/

      Specifically -

      In the latter case, the system may simply lock up - a state with even worse latency characteristics combined with surprisingly bad power use. So this workaround may be welcomed by users who have seen their battery life decline significantly, but it is not a proper solution to the problem.
      This site has NO credibility, none .. zero.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by fewt View Post
        Calling this a "regression" rather than a method to work around a badly implemented BIOS is silly.
        Well we went from power management to no powermanagement. That is a regression. But this isn't a Linux regression; it was simply called that because this issue was dubbed a Linux regression.

        This site has NO credibility, none .. zero.
        The propperly working patch actually does increase powerusage by 4-5%, as evident by eyewitness testimony here. Do you have hard evidence that this patch mostly increases enegry efficiency on faulty BIOSes?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          Well we went from power management to no powermanagement. That is a regression. But this isn't a Linux regression; it was simply called that because this issue was dubbed a Linux regression.
          No you did not go from power management to no power management. Some hardware devices (PCIe) lost power management in some cases. It was dubbed a regression due to a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.

          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          The propperly working patch actually does increase powerusage by 4-5%, as evident by eyewitness testimony here. Do you have hard evidence that this patch mostly increases enegry efficiency on faulty BIOSes?
          There is plenty of evidence that it only impacted some systems, in past threads here, and elsewhere.

          Comment


          • #95
            How do I interpret this lspci output?

            Code:
            01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV770 [Radeon HD 4870] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
            ...
            LnkCap:	Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x16, ASPM L0s L1, Latency L0 <64ns, L1 <1us
            	ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot-
            LnkCtl:	ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+
            	ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-

            Comment


            • #96
              It is called a regression because they at first thought it was.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by fewt View Post
                There is plenty of evidence that it only impacted some systems, in past threads here, and elsewhere.
                Which is a long ways away from your claim that it didn't even exist based on your "expertise" and "thousands of users".

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by fewt View Post
                  It was dubbed a regression due to a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.
                  No, that's not true. You can have a planned regression, or an expected regression. It's still a regression, due to the fact that the new power behavior is worse than it used to be. Even if that fixes other bugs, it's fixes crashes while simultaneously regressing power usage.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Always interesting to see a thread go from something interesting (which BIOS-devs sucks at their implementations) to something completely unnecessary (whoo, is-it-a-regression-or-not grammar-nazi style, whooo michael-sucks-because-I-really-has-nothing-better-to-say, troll-style ), effectively killing the thread.

                    Please address your more nasty aggression/mental/inferiority-problems before posting.

                    From my side, cudos to Michael for instead of just hunting dow one regression taking the time and automating the process.
                    The only thing I am currently missing is a more automated test-platform for hardware to find what is working according to specs and definitions, something like the BIOS test Intel released earlier this year, but more automated and with the possibility to send it to a central DB for everyone to know how good/shitty products some vendors do. I actually think it would be easier to get hardware-vendors to sign their products with "passes <name-of-hw-check>-<version-of-said-test>" then sign them "works with linux", mostly if Intel and AMD pushes them to use that test to create less shitty BIOSes. Some BIOS-devs would like it too, I think, the possibility to test out features in a easy way before Windows supports said technology.

                    Comment


                    • The entire motherboard chip design is hugely based on the BIOS. Why not just gather another 'standards body/consortium' (like they all like to do), totaly whipe all the crap from the tabel, start out with Coreboot in the 'just load this from here to there and execute and bye-bye'-mode and strip and patch the shit out of the lower kernel layers and... Simply be done with it.

                      You would think that all these companies would do that anyway, to save some serious licensing and programming money, but appearantly they've something better to do, like putting F4tality1337-uberGamer on the box...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        Which is a long ways away from your claim that it didn't even exist based on your "expertise" and "thousands of users".
                        Re-read my comment and try to comprehend my statement this time rather than simply attacking me. I said it probably didn't exist, and that none of my users were impacted. Both statements are still true.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          No, that's not true. You can have a planned regression, or an expected regression. It's still a regression, due to the fact that the new power behavior is worse than it used to be. Even if that fixes other bugs, it's fixes crashes while simultaneously regressing power usage.
                          Perhaps it is a regression for 1% of the 1% of users that this patch fixed, I would concede that point.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            Re-read my comment and try to comprehend my statement this time rather than simply attacking me. I said it probably didn't exist, and that none of my users were impacted. Both statements are still true.

                            Oh my what a short memory you have:

                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            Are we still beating this dead horse? This power bug doesn't exist, and sadly I'm starting to believe it is being reported on for the sole purpose of driving hits.

                            No, the sky is not falling. Yes, I have used my netbook for 10 hours with kernel 2.6.39 and yes I still had battery left afterwards.

                            Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it.

                            Sorry to be so blunt, but people are actually believing this even though there is NO evidence that it's real.

                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            I agree, however "WorksForMe" isn't at play here, since I have pretty extensive knowledge of power saving techniques on this platform.

                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            Again you make assumptions. I looked at each and every comment in the bug report and discredited nearly all of them almost two weeks ago.

                            I know you are trying to defend the article, but this is ridiculous. Phoronix was given the benefit of the doubt, and has had plenty of time to "bisect the issue". All this article does is continue to claim that the sky is falling, but if you look outside you will find that the sky is certainly NOT falling.

                            If it were we would have credible reports and not just one tinfoil hat article, and the resulting bug reports from the paranoia that it caused.
                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            By "theory" you mean practice, practice which happens to be in the realm of Linux power management.

                            Something that I have deep roots in and years of experience with.


                            Not to mention the thousands of users of my product that improves power savings .. on the Linux platform. None of which have filed a bug report, or made mere mention of battery life issues with any recent kernel.

                            Because those issues don't exist.

                            I also happen to have experience with product testing, and believe me they are all doing it wrong. There is no control group, and the test reports are all over the map. You can't confirm anything by it except that the testing itself is invalid.

                            Michael has had enough time to find the issue, and he's come up empty. The closest thing we have seen to a "real" power related issue is the patch for the cpuidle bug that was pulled into 2.6.39.1.

                            Too bad you don't like what I have to say but Phoronix is wrong, get over it.

                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            Unable to replicate it because it does not exist, as I indicated.

                            As I said, it doesn't exist. Making lame excuses as to why I (and others) haven't seen it doesn't really help.
                            Originally posted by fewt View Post
                            Unable to replicate across many systems and many use cases, remember I have 0 bug reports and a few thousand users. This in itself is evidence against this "bug".

                            I really shouldn't have had to quote as you should have known what you said previously. You doubt Phoronix's credibility but perhaps you should look in the mirror.
                            Last edited by deanjo; 07-05-2011, 10:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              Oh my what a short memory you have:
                              or actually spend time finding the problem
                              there is NO evidence that it's real.

                              To the rest of my comments you have quoted out of context, they were correct in their proper context, as the bug didn't exist until it was proven to exist.

                              For example..

                              What you fail to realize though is that the burdon of proof is not on me. It is not my responsibility to disprove that the bug exists, it is on Phoronix who initiated and continued these same baseless claims for months. I don't think that it is too much to ask for Phoronix to actually prove their theory after all this time by showing us the commit since the claim was made in the first article that it would be found "quickly".

                              It is not up to the kernel team to change the running configuration (dynamic tuning), as that would negatively impact a great many things. This function belongs in userland.

                              Power management on Linux is on par (in some areas) with power management on Windows and OSX once you install Jupiter. Without it, power management on Linux is virtually non-existant.

                              I don't know that I would call this a kernel regression, as the kernel doesn't dynamically change parameters based on applied power state. That's what you need something like Jupiter for.. - http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...gression/page5

                              I see that the only value you bring to this forum is in the form of personally attacking anyone that disagrees with Michael. A troll as moderator, nice.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                I really shouldn't have had to quote as you should have known what you said previously. You doubt Phoronix's credibility but perhaps you should look in the mirror.

                                No, it is most likely not a real problem or is a problem for a limited number of devices. The evidence is against it. Those users that are reporting "problems" aren't troubleshooting it well (not their faults).
                                - My comment on reddit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X