Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: A Comment On The Linux 2.6.38 Power Regression

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,629

    Default A Comment On The Linux 2.6.38 Power Regression

    Phoronix: A Comment On The Linux 2.6.38 Power Regression

    Jesse Barnes, the maintainer of the PCI subsystem for the Linux kernel and one of the developers who signed-off on the patch that I discovered is causing the major Linux 2.6.38 kernel power regression, has commented on the matter...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    99

    Angry

    Jesse believes that Microsoft must have additional checks in place when determining whether Windows should handle Active-State Power Management or not.
    Quoting Bill Gates:
    One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.
    It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.
    Maybe there is no way Io avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we couid define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
    Someone put this quote on a comment about this Phoronix finding on Slashdot.

    It's originally from this email sent by Bill Gates.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Serbia, Nis
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeiF View Post
    Quoting Bill Gates:

    Someone put this quote on a comment about this Phoronix finding on Slashdot.

    It's originally from this email sent by Bill Gates.
    Well...they did a good job

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    144

    Default

    I appreciate this story. but how do we know *if* we are affected? THAT should be a story. There were a few comments in the other story today about possible ways to check but no one knew for sure. This is important enough to be a story of it's own.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Very disappointing to know that the problem was found BUT nothing will be done about it in the short (or even medium) term. <sarcasm>That will surely help linux get a good reputation.</sarcasm>

  6. #6

    Default

    Since this issue (setting ASPM bits and ignoring BIOS) didn't seem to cause many crashes/device failure before, can't we set by default and create a black list for devices that have faulty BIOS ASPM settings?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Very disappointing to know that the problem was found BUT nothing will be done about it in the short (or even medium) term. <sarcasm>That will surely help linux get a good reputation.</sarcasm>
    'Linux' doesn't have control over mobo vendors and can't force them to write proper ACPI tables. Microsoft's monopolistic practices are at fault for that.

Posting Permissions

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