Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems

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

  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    Which users?
    Oh heck just read the many threads here on the subject not to mention bugzilla reports to distros.


    No I didn't deny any existence (at first), I said quite clearly that had there been ample evidence to support it I wouldn't have argued against it. That didn't happen though, and my own evidence didn't support it. It was a theory that was claimed in multiple articles as a fact when it hadn't been proven to be a fact.
    So what you have is two pieces of evidence that oppose each other. That still does not mean that something does not exist. The fact is that there were power consumption regressions. That is known. What you are asking for is the cause and this is what took time to get to you (a whole whopping 2 months). Given that Michael has many other things to do that is very reasonable.

    I can though provide evidence against which I did, in April.
    No actually you provided evidence on a non related cause that exhibited similar effects.

    There is always a possibility that the sun will crash into the earth (or vaporize it along the way), but we wouldn't claim that it's happening without sufficient evidence, now would we?
    At one time people thought the earth was flat and that was considered "fact" too.

    (BTW the sun will eventually engulf earth, that is pretty much known fact made by observations of supernova).

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    The same person probably that later said "it didn't exist".
    Ugh, here we go again..

    /thread

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    Hmm.. Sounds familiar.. Who-else-said-this-I-wonder?
    The same person probably that later said "it didn't exist".

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied

    This morning Jesse wrote, "the behavior unfortunately sounds correct (or at least intended)." He confirmed that they just use a BIOS flag to determine whether to manage the PCI Express link state, since if both the kernel and BIOS are attempting to manage the PCI-E link, a hang can result or the device failing.
    Hmm.. Sounds familiar.. Who-else-said-this-I-wonder?

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Oh please, PTS is an aggregate of third party benchmarks that puts the results in a unified form. Third party validations has been done by a number of users.
    Which users?

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    You say it is non-scientific but yet you deny existence of anything you have not experienced. The basis of all science stems from one question "I do not know." It does not deny anything until every avenue and data set has been confirmed, cross checked and proven without doubt. Until that happens it is a theory.
    No I didn't deny any existence (at first), I said quite clearly that had there been ample evidence to support it I wouldn't have argued against it. That didn't happen though, and my own evidence didn't support it. It was a theory that was claimed in multiple articles as a fact when it hadn't been proven to be a fact.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    The point is that you cannot say if it is or not, just that you simply do not know. However you can make observations saying "i think something is wrong" and that does warrant further investigation.
    I can though provide evidence against which I did, in April.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    "Most" is not all. Until you can say "all" there is always a possibility of an issue that you have not known about.
    There is always a possibility that the sun will crash into the earth (or vaporize it along the way), but we wouldn't claim that it's happening without sufficient evidence, now would we?

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=OTYwNA

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    You still have to have ample evidence that a disease exists before it is classified as a disease. A single test using software written by Phoronix doesn't really make the case because it is a conflict of interest, and no third party validation was performed.
    Oh please, PTS is an aggregate of third party benchmarks that puts the results in a unified form. Third party validations has been done by a number of users.

    It was a non-scientific test at best, and riddled with doubt.
    You say it is non-scientific but yet you deny existence of anything you have not experienced. The basis of all science stems from one question "I do not know." It does not deny anything until every avenue and data set has been confirmed, cross checked and proven without doubt. Until that happens it is a theory.

    You can't just say "omg disease" and it be a disease.
    The point is that you cannot say if it is or not, just that you simply do not know. However you can make observations saying "i think something is wrong" and that does warrant further investigation.

    Had ample evidence been presented and validated I wouldn't argue against it, however in reviewing the bug reports at Launchpad I found most of them to be the result of improper testing.
    "Most" is not all. Until you can say "all" there is always a possibility of an issue that you have not known about.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    They had proof that it did exist, that was the whole reason why the article was written. What they did not have was the cause isolated. You do not need a cure or isolate a cause for a disease for a disease to exist.
    You still have to have ample evidence that a disease exists before it is classified as a disease. A single test using software written by Phoronix doesn't really make the case because it is a conflict of interest, and no third party validation was performed.

    It was a non-scientific test at best, and riddled with doubt.

    You can't just say "omg disease" and it be a disease.

    Had ample evidence been presented and validated I wouldn't argue against it, however in reviewing the bug reports at Launchpad I found most of them to be the result of improper testing.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    Hardly. Until it is proven, it is only a theory. Had Phoronix implied that it was a theory, my opinion would have been different. The articles (all of them) claimed that it existed.
    They had proof that it did exist, that was the whole reason why the article was written. What they did not have was the cause isolated. You do not need a cure or isolate a cause for a disease for a disease to exist.



    Sorry, you can't correct the context of your statement after the fact because you have already said it.

    That's the same logic you tried to apply to me, if the shoe fits, wear it.
    I'm not disputing your reply. I should have clarified it more to which post I was referring to.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlbertP
    replied
    Fewt and Deanjo. Please use PM for this discussion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X