Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 145

Thread: The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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:

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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 at 10:21 AM.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #106

    Default

    One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?

    Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?

  7. #107
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    If your computers are all from the same manufacturer & type, it's possible that no one reports a problem - they may have a proper BIOS. And it's also dependent on the age of the computers. Older ones may not use PCI-E that extensively. Netbooks often use Intel graphics, which may be connected directly to the PCI bus insteatd of via a PCI-E port.
    You cannot deny that there are some users with problems. Many people can run Linux 2.6.38 fine, and desktop users often don't notice that there's a problem, but there ARE users affected.

    Please stop arguing about who speaks the truth.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    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.
    Taking out of context? The context is provided by direct posts that you posted.

    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.


    He first noticed the issue in late April, they were not "baseless" and that has been proven.

    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".
    We also know about Michealís attempts at finding a device that would allow him to track it down easier and in a timely matter. We also know that he received it mid June. Had everybody listened to you there would have been no testing done because you kept claiming it "did not exist"

    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.
    Lol, you know it was you that was trolling. I can go on and quote quite a few attacks made by you to pretty much anybody that disagreed with you. If quoting your own posts is trolling then so be it.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    Ė]fuduntu 2 points 7 days ago*
    Hindsight is 20-20. Comment posted after the article was published.

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Taking out of context? The context is provided by direct posts that you posted.
    The context is provided by the original threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    [/B]He first noticed the issue in late April, they were not "baseless" and that has been proven.
    Yes, It has been proven now, and you'll find that I'm not disagreeing with that. It however only impacts a very small subset of systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    We also know about Michealís attempts at finding a device that would allow him to track it down easier and in a timely matter. We also know that he received it mid June. Had everybody listened to you there would have been no testing done because you kept claiming it "did not exist"
    I asked several times for the evidence to prove that it was real, you can't discount that, nor can you prove that I hadn't asked for it. Since April.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Lol, you know it was you that was trolling. I can go on and quote quite a few attacks made by you to pretty much anybody that disagreed with you. If quoting your own posts is trolling then so be it.
    Oh I see. I provide sufficient evidence to show that this "major" regression is at most minor (see link above to the original post), and continue to argue against the non-proven bug is trolling? You have trolled every single one of my comments here, it seems that is your specialty.

Posting Permissions

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