Talk Of A "Massive Power Regression" In Linux 3.5
Phoronix: Talk Of A "Massive Power Regression" In Linux 3.5
For at least some hardware, it looks like the Linux 3.5 kernel has regressed and is burning through noticeably more power than its predecessor...
I can see these power issues are becoming a major problem for Linux in general. It's hard to say to Windows users: "hey, this software is free, but you'll get an hour less of battery life". This is simply not acceptable, no matter how you twist it.
I know the troubles involved in making progress (uncooperative companies, undocumented protocols, closed-off hardware, etc.), but this is something that we as a community need to put pressure on. I don't know who, or which influential company, will need to fire the first salvo, but it's something that's got to be done to make hardware manufacturers realize the seriousness of the issue.
Ah. I was wondering when we would get another power regression. Anyone want to make bets on how many kernel versions will pass before it is fixed? My bet is 4.
i bet some lazy kernel dev will push the big red button named "fix da driver" in the next month TROLL
Originally Posted by ua=42
is impressive like some ppl like minimize or have fun [blessful ignorance] of how massive can be fix some "trivial" bug in an inmensively complex piece of software like a kernel driver and the affected subsystems
Switching between 3.2 and 3.4 (debian kernels) I have the impression that already 3.4 chews through more power than 3.2. Power efficiency really needs more attention from guys like Intel or RedHat or google.
TBH i was expecting that someone (someone on the kernel team that is) would be testing for that kind of regressions over the rc cycle.
well imagine is happens only with atom cpu but with a bugged motherboard from zotac to put an example but it doesn't happen with an intel board, so you need that ppl with this specific setup report the bug [not just whine about it in a forum unrelated to kernel development], unlike many ppl here think kernel developer don't practice witchcraft or divination and you can't realisticly expect them to test every possible combination of hardware know to men without have release an stable kernel every 15 years
Originally Posted by 89c51
so yes reporting those bugs in bugzilla[google: kernel bugzilla] make a huge diference and is actually the bigger step needed to fix those issues
Well that's totally the wrong way of doing things: release broken, non tested stuff and try to fix them sometime in the future.
Originally Posted by jrch2k8
Windows does not have this issue because they do things the other way: test test test, before releasing and is why they release a preview release and a bunch of other releases prior to final.
-Release to Manufacturing
-and then General availability (if ready)
This "we need to release" a kernel (and/or a distro) every 6 months (because we want to) with limited to no testing.
These fixed dates don't make much sense, and is why we always have these regressions. And then they say "don't worry it will probably be fixed on next releases" and then a release after they break it again and the cycle of breakage goes on forever.
If windows had the same "we don't care" linux release model it would be a broken mess that fails every 6 months.
In conclusion: please Release if ready !
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-- Albert Einstein
Last edited by madjr; 07-30-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Linux is used quite literally everywhere. You can't delay the entire Linux release because of some bug that just affects some specific case. It's up to distribution to choose which kernel releases to use and they can even patch these problems themselves before hand. You can't compare Linux to Windows because Linux is simply a kernel. New major version of Linux is released once in 60-70 days btw.
Originally Posted by madjr