Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Intel P-State Driver Might Still Be Causing Wonky Linux Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,644

    Default Intel P-State Driver Might Still Be Causing Wonky Linux Performance

    Phoronix: Intel P-State Driver Might Still Be Causing Wonky Linux Performance

    Last year on earlier versions of the Linux kernel we've uncovered performance issues around Intel's P-State / CPUfreq driver that was causing adverse performance in certain configurations. While it looked like most of the Intel CPU clocking issues were resolved in more recent versions of the Linux kernel, it looks like some Linux performance problems are present in Linux 3.14...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY4NDE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    50

    Default On Ethernet too

    I see a _major_ performance regression on 3.14 Ethernet performance as well, this issue might explain that.

    On 3.13 I can easily saturate my 1Gbps link, on 3.14 it's 100 (!!!) times slower, I only get like 1.2MBps

    This is on my T440s with F20.
    I run 3.13 now obviously

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fhuberts View Post
    I see a _major_ performance regression on 3.14 Ethernet performance as well, this issue might explain that.

    On 3.13 I can easily saturate my 1Gbps link, on 3.14 it's 100 (!!!) times slower, I only get like 1.2MBps

    This is on my T440s with F20.
    I run 3.13 now obviously
    How do you like the T440s? Was thinking of getting one

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Porto
    Posts
    200

    Default kernel 3.15...

    kernel 3.15 is better than 3.14 and 3.13

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rikkinho View Post
    kernel 3.15 is better than 3.14 and 3.13
    But I have yet to hear that they've changed their mind about killing off support for 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels.

    I'd really rather use Wine than waste CPU time and lose the moral high ground by running a pirated copy of Win3.1 in DOSBox, thank you very much.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,070

    Default

    You never got a W3.11 license? Even though I've long lost the box, floppies, and license, since I paid for one I feel fully morally ok to pirate w3.11 for a VM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    You never got a W3.11 license? Even though I've long lost the box, floppies, and license, since I paid for one I feel fully morally ok to pirate w3.11 for a VM.
    In between the original IBM PC which I, sadly, no longer have and the HP Pavilion 8160 (which came with Win95), all of our PCs were my father's bring-home-from-work laptops.

    ...plus, GOG.com is gearing up to support Linux and they apparently already use Wine for some of their MacOS offerings but, obviously, can't sell DOSBox bundles containing pirated copies of Win3.1.
    Last edited by ssokolow; 05-09-2014 at 02:34 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •