Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.9-rc3 Kernel Released With Various Fixes

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

  • Linux 4.9-rc3 Kernel Released With Various Fixes

    Phoronix: Linux 4.9-rc3 Kernel Released With Various Fixes

    Linus Torvalds released the Linux 4.9-rc3 kernel as the latest test version of the massive Linux 4.9 code-base...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...=Linux-4.9-rc3

  • #2
    i expect to see finally a good support and a good usage of intel P state in skylake, i'm using cpufreq because of really bad state of pstate in kernel 4.8 (since 4.4 it becomes really bad)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

      Does not the Bios of Intel chip-set motherboards control CPU power and frequency scaling.
      Do you mean ACPI or what? Sorry for my ignorance, I have a laptop and this Broadwell-E machine eats the somewhat limited battery (my dream is to plug a 3X capacity one) while doing things travelling with my laptop.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
        Does not the Bios of Intel chip-set motherboards control CPU power and frequency scaling.
        No, it only enables/disables the feature. Power management is handled by the OS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

          So how many years it takes when intel power savings features pays the extra price of the processor in a desktop computer? I use full power and warm up my house while I am computing, when I am not, I shutdown the computer. With an ssd and a non debug custom kernel it takes 0 seconds to shutdown and boot to desktop from bios beep takes 12 seconds.
          Power savings help with power consumption. The main goal is not to save money. Even if your computer used 0 Watts, an ordinary user won't save any real money. The goal is on a more global level, to reduce the number of power plants etc. There's one domain where power consumption matters - look at mobile stuff, Intel isn't the favorite platform for many cause it would mean half of the battery life. iPad runs fo 10 hours, an x86-64 tablet for 4-5 hours.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
            So how many years it takes when intel power savings features pays the extra price of the processor in a desktop computer? I use full power and warm up my house while I am computing, when I am not, I shutdown the computer. With an ssd and a non debug custom kernel it takes 0 seconds to shutdown and boot to desktop from bios beep takes 12 seconds.
            Since a long time now, both CPUs and GPUs live on the concept of "race to idle", they boost-throttle, boost-throttle and so on all the times to give the most performance they can only when really needed.

            This is because there are obvious thermal limitations and you can't just run at full throttle (true full throttle) all the time without a VERY serious and expensive upgrade to cooling systems (or triggering thermal throttling and tanking performance hard).

            If you don't want your PC/laptop to look like a Mad Max's pimped cars erupting flames from exhausts (and occasionally blowing up), then power management is required.

            from here

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by caligula View Post
              Power savings help with power consumption. The main goal is not to save money. Even if your computer used 0 Watts, an ordinary user won't save any real money. The goal is on a more global level, to reduce the number of power plants etc. There's one domain where power consumption matters - look at mobile stuff, Intel isn't the favorite platform for many cause it would mean half of the battery life. iPad runs fo 10 hours, an x86-64 tablet for 4-5 hours.
              FYI: where power consumption matters and does save money is at company scale, or in datacenters.

              Chip makers in general don't give a shit about "saving the environment" or whatever.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yep. Canada is certainly one of those places - and there has been a big stink about phasing out most of the common incandescent bulbs. We are far enough away from the equator that during the summer we don't need artificial light much (the sun is up as long as we are) and during the winter everyone was nagged to replace their incandescent bulbs with environmentally dubious compact fluorescent bulbs "to save electricity" and ended up cranking up the electric heat to compensate.

                Canada grew up as a country around the same time electrification was happening, and we have relatively more access to hydro-electric power than most, so we pretty much skipped over gas and went straight to standardizing on electricity as our primary power source. Didn't stop our governments from blindly copying the energy initiatives that might have made sense in other countries but made much less sense here, so we have been doing brilliant things like replacing investments in hydro and nuclear energy with windmills and solar farms, then having to backfill that with natural gas and coal for stability.

                I think this is more common than people believe.
                Test signature

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  environmentally dubious compact fluorescent bulbs "to save electricity" and ended up cranking up the electric heat to compensate.
                  Mass-production is an ugly b.. I mean harsh mistress, to lower the prices of complex devices (like low-power light bulbs) you need to have the biggest possible market.

                  I still remember the times when they costed A LOT, and they still cost more than what old-tech bulbs cost.

                  replacing investments in hydro and nuclear energy with windmills and solar farms, then having to backfill that with natural gas and coal for stability.
                  This is sadly common in most places. Greenpeace and similar brainless hippies should be punished hard.

                  went straight to standardizing on electricity as our primary power source.
                  France also has a similar situation with nuclear.
                  Electricity costs so much less than in other (neighboring) countries that electric heating is preferred over natural gas (or even mineral-oil/diesel).
                  For now their government is acting less stupidly than most, and they keep their mostly-nuclear vision.

                  Meanwhile, India and China (that can't really afford to dick around with silly things like solar/wind while still burning coal as that has limits too) are pushing on nuclear and hydro.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Switching the lights where I use my video editing setup from 100W incandescent to 9W LED's meant that when running at night and only surfing the Web or editing rather than rendering video I could get both lights and the computer for the power the lights alone used to use. That's also 200W of heat I don't have to get rid of on a hot summer night. What would be nice though would be (would require water cooling) to have one radiator outdoors for summer use and a second one inside for winter use when the heat of a video rendering job can be subtracted from heating the house. This sort of thing is why Google has those outdoor cooling towers that look like a nuke plant, the ones some of the telecoms used a photo of in their anti-net neutrality ads.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X