Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: There's Another Linux Kernel Power Problem

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    My tests aren't invalid - as I have said many times, the kernel isn't responsible for tuning itself for power management.
    Yes, it's not the kernel's responsibility to tune itself for any particular workload.

    But if there's a clear, objective regression with the defaults, is that not a bug? If power usage increases, but performance does not, is that not a bug, even if you don't see it in a custom configuration?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    It should not be hard to bisect, maybe i can do it sometime in the week-end, it only takes some tens of full kernel builds

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Yes, it's not the kernel's responsibility to tune itself for any particular workload.

    But if there's a clear, objective regression with the defaults, is that not a bug? If power usage increases, but performance does not, is that not a bug, even if you don't see it in a custom configuration?
    It is neither a regression, nor a bug - even if Michael says it is. You simply can't look at things that way - because it doesn't make sense.

    Using this sort of logic it would be safe to say that if kernel 3.7 used more power than 1.0 that it was a regression - when it would just be due to the additional work the kernel needed to do to support new functionality in the kernel.

    It is completely silly to perform these sorts of tests, they benefit no-one except Mr. Larabel.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    I find it really hard to believe 3.6 enables some new functionality that takes 6-8 watts.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I find it really hard to believe 3.6 enables some new functionality that takes 6-8 watts.
    There isn't any new functionality that takes 6-8 watts, nor is there any bug that takes 6-8 watts. Phoronix needed more dimes, hence this article.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    There isn't any new functionality that takes 6-8 watts, nor is there any bug that takes 6-8 watts. Phoronix needed more dimes, hence this article.
    I wonder why he's still on this forum is all he does is complain about Larabel -- oh wait, it's called trolling.

    Now, can we get back on topic?

    Btw, links posted so far:
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=149901
    https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?id=22089 (German)
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743
    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48721
    Last edited by halo9en; 12-12-2012 at 01:31 AM.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halo9en View Post
    I wonder why he's still on this forum is all he does is complain about Larabel -- oh wait, it's called trolling.

    Now, can we get back on topic?

    Btw, links posted so far:
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=149901
    https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?id=22089 (German)
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743
    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48721
    Disagreeing isn't trolling moron. Your links are unrelated to the Phoronix article, with one exception - probably the forum post that caused this article to be written.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    Disagreeing isn't trolling moron. Your links are unrelated to the Phoronix article, with one exception - probably the forum post that caused this article to be written.
    Ok, I'll bite, troll. Complaining about ad revenues and repeating post after post that Larabel is <insert insult here>, spamming about your little distro and your websites, and resorting to personal insults qualifies as troll behavior that serves to shut down any civil dialogue. There are other websites if you don't like this one, you know.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halo9en View Post
    Ok, I'll bite, troll. Complaining about ad revenues and repeating post after post that Larabel is <insert insult here>, spamming about your little distro and your websites, and resorting to personal insults qualifies as troll behavior that serves to shut down any civil dialogue. There are other websites if you don't like this one, you know.
    zomglol I bet you used both brain cells to type that, didn'tchya.

    I didn't intend to shut down any civil dialog - I'm just calling it what it is - crap. I even provided evidence. If that's a problem for you, grow some technical skills and tell my why I'm wrong without referencing a forum post and a patch that injects wait states into kernel functions.

    Where is the kernel mailing list post that confirms the bug - or even Michael's kernel mailing list post that lets them know the potential bug even exists.

Posting Permissions

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