Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Kernel Power Bug Is Fixed

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

Bug 145

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux kernel power bug that caused high power usage for many Intel Linux systems has finally been addressed. Matthew Garrett of Red Hat has devised a solution for the ASPM Linux power problem by mimicking Microsoft Windows' power behavior in the Linux kernel. A patch is on LKML for this solution to finally restore the battery life under Linux."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good News (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029342)

Nice to hear this. Now to look for the ubuntu update.

Re:Good News (1)

klashn (1323433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029370)

I am also looking forward to this, though now my battery probably has 200 cycles on it, and I'd probably get better battery life by replacing the battery instead :-)

Re:Good News (2, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029372)

It's funny they had to fix it by copying the method from Windows though.

Re:Good News (5, Funny)

HouseOfMisterE (659953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029410)

The didn't copy it, they "mimicked" it!

Re:Good News (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029420)

It's funny they had to fix it by copying the method from Windows though.

Nothing funny here, if your hardware is optimized by the hardware manufacturer for windows, getting better performance from that hardware by mimicking windows behavior seems logical, if not controversial.

Re:Good News (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029596)

... especially since the hardware manufacturers frequently deviate from the specifications in the standards to support Microsoft operating systems.

Re:Good News (5, Insightful)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030268)

What's the controversy? The [defective] hardware only works one way. It's just doing it the only one way that it works. You can't fault someone for going down the only path available.

Re:Good News (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030678)

More specifically, the power management mechanism in question(PCIe ASPM) requires, broadly speaking, two different components:

1. You need to detect boards that are capable of it, so that you don't try to shut down idle links in a system where that could cause crashes, losing touch with peripherals, or other havoc.

2. You need the actual logic for detecting idle PCIe links, and the appropriate driver support and so on for instructing the PCIe controller(s) to change link power states.

Part two is the bulk of the matter, and it already worked for some time now, if your board declared ASPM support or if you used ASPM force. Part one is comparatively simple; but the approach that Linux previously used was hobbled by the fact that boards frequently don't declare ASPM support even when they have it; but enough boards don't that just defaulting to force would be risky. To deal with this, the latest patch adds the heuristics that Windows uses to detect ASPM, since the method that is supposed to work frequently doesn't, but vendors aren't going to ship gear that doesn't support Windows...

Re:Good News (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031958)

Uhh you SEEM to know what you are talking about but unless i'm mistaken there is a flaw in your logic. you just said that the patch add the heuristics that Windows uses to detect ASPM which if they are having to use heuristics to detect the thing how EXACTLY is the OEM "helping" Windows? By making their crap crappy so heuristics works?

It sounds more like the race to the bottom has caused some low end ODMs to cut corners where they shouldn't have been cut. I've found that contrary to popular belief this DOES bite Windows in the ass too, as I found when upgrading some machines from XP to Vista during the whole "We install XP and give you the Vista disc" phase that some OEMs had the BIOS set to an insanely fast boot sequence that wouldn't completely initialize before beginning the handoff to the OS. With XP it seemed to tolerate it just fine, but Vista would just "forget" hardware like BT was there. I had to go in and tweak the BIOS to give a few more seconds time before handoff to make Vista function on those machines.

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38032752)

The messed up thing is that even though it apparently bites every OS in the ass, they still manage to get get the Windows seal of approval. Lots of low standards to go around it seems. Shame on Linux for doing it by the book in the first place. ::chuckle::

Luckily none of my machines suffered the fallout despite Phoronix's assertions that it affects every machine out there--even machines that don't do ASPM (like some old Pentium 4). Everything is a smoking gun in Michael's lab I guess.

Re:Good News (0)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032962)

The hardware only work on way. I don't see how any of this is Microsoft's fault. They just had bigger paid staff to look into every single board out there, or to tell the manufacturers look, do it this way and we will support your products. Who is going to say NO to 80% market share?

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033316)

The hardware works that way because it's defective.

Re:Good News (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033364)

Well I read it as 'MSFT realizes the standards don't mean shit to ODMs and worked around it" while the Linux guys try to stick to the standards and it bit them in the ass. Building and repairing PCs 6 days a week frankly this does NOT surprise me because if you've looked at the BIOS some of these ODMs put out frankly shoddy shit is the ONLY word to describe it!

I had to tell a customer just last week he was either gonna have to have me order an EXACTLY identical stick for his desktop or simply do without a stick because the POS BIOS on the eMachines would not allow you to run dual sticks unless they were a perfect match! all because some ODM decided that having a simple switch in BIOS for single or dual mode was just too much bother. I've also run into OEMs that put dual core HSFs on quads, fans so shitty I'm surprised they run at all, PSUs that are so close to the absolute max limit on the machine that literally a single fan or DVD burner would have overloaded the thing, it seems like if it can save them 2c and it'll pass POST that is all they give a shit about.

I'm all for having low prices but when the design decisions actually shorten the life of the machine and risk all kinds of errors and hassles for the user that's where i draw the line. Some of the low end Dells and eMachines are so badly built frankly i'm amazed they make it to the end of warranty, talk about junk!

Re:Good News (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032948)

What's the controversy? The [defective] hardware only works one way. It's just doing it the only one way that it works. You can't fault someone for going down the only path available.

I suspect Microsoft will do exactly that: Fault them with Lawyers, especially since they pretty much admitted they copied what Microsoft did.

Re:Good News (1, Flamebait)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029438)

I am thankful it was not 'copied' from Apple. Apple would've sued the whole linux/Linux/GNU/FOSS in South Korea, Germany, Japan and of course the US and would have asked to ban the import of, er, things.

Re:Good News (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029582)

Yes it's not like Apple contributes to open source code [wikipedia.org] at [wikipedia.org] all [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Good News NOT! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030252)

Those Apple Retards Fu^^up Gnome.

Re:Good News (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030346)

Yes, because contributing a few open source project gives you the right to employ VERY proprietary methods and approaches to the vast majority of what you do. Filling baseless patent suits is perfectly acceptable so long as you have at least one open source project.

Re:Good News (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033540)

No, they have the right to employ proprietary business methods independently of their contributions to open source. Said contributions are "above and beyond" in common parlance.

Re:Good News (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030362)

Fuck the token gestures. The company is rotten, no matter how fanbois want to twist it.

Re:Good News (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029736)

Go fuck yourself.

Re:Good News (1)

TommyGunnRX (756664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029482)

Congrats to Garrett; he has some balls admitting to such "collaboration". I really hope I can get more than an hour out of my SSD-only laptop. Granted its going on 3 years old, but the battery is less than 2!

Re:Good News (3, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030578)

Garrett was also in large part responsible for fixing a running problem [lwn.net] with booting on UEFI systems, particularly notebooks. (That wasn't the only patch that needed to be written, but it did provide the foundation. It's also one of the funniest developer commentaries for a patch I've ever seen.) I've seen his name attached to Linux development for a while, but it's only recently that I've come to understand just how much of the deep internal architecture he understands and has helped to fix.

Re:Good News (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029520)

I don't find it funny, just common sense. It sounds like ASPM is very poorly documented, so if Windows is doing a decent job of implementing the functionality, then reverse-engineering, or at least guessing at how Windows does it, seems like a valid approach.

Re:Good News (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029678)

I think it's more a case of the manufacturers supporting windows than the other way around. Of course Linux doesn't get that level of support because of the lower user base. Apple solves the problem by making their own hardware.

Re:Good News (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029934)

It's actually about the Windows logo sticker on the side of your laptop. To get that, the IHV (hardware vendor) has to pass a suite of tests which are defined entirely by Microsoft. Since you (the IHV) really want to get that Winlogo sticker, you pretty much have to do it the way Windows wants it by definition. Of course, IHVs can and do push back on test requirements, but the tests are basically black boxes and it's far easier to just make the tests pass than to complain and make Microsoft change something. Hardware without the Winlogo sticker is far more likely to adhere to various standards, since they haven't had to inject various hacks and workarounds to get Winlogo to pass.

Re:Good News (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031298)

Really? When did Apple start making graphics cards, expansions cards, motherboards, etc.? As far as I'm aware they don't make any of the affected components, nor do they design or make the logic responsible for negotiating power.

Re:Good News (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032446)

Apple doesn't design the motherboards in their computers?

Re:Good News (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032492)

How much you want to bet that Apple gets ALL the specs for that hardware? They don't get the bullshit that linux developers have to tolerate. They've got the money to spend and the hardware vendors kiss their ass and build it to their (Apple's) specs not the other way around. Sure they don't actually manufacture it but you can bet they ain't buying it off the shelf.

Re:Good News (5, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032000)

It's not poorly documented. It is poorly implemented by most hardware manufacturers. The OS is supposed to be able to query the system and ask if it supports the power saving features, but most hardware just ignores it (making it appear as though it doesn't). From what I understand, Microsoft no longer asks if it supports it, it simply asks "what are you" and then looks it up in an internal database to see if it's compatible. It's a *VERY* ugly hack, but unfortunately it appears to be the only way to fix it because hardware manufacturers are lazy.

Re:Good News (1)

eriks (31863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032778)

That's fascinating. It would be cooler if the protocols were rigorously followed, but things being as they are, that's still kind of neat. All kinds of fancy algorithms and 30+ years of moore's law, and fundamental aspects of modern computing technology still depend on simple lookup tables.

Re:Good News (5, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029676)

That's a wrong impression given by a poorly written article summary. If you read the patch submission, the only involvement of Windows here was using a presentation about their OS as a way to clarify the minimal documentation about this area. Nothing was copied from Windows.

Re:Good News (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029848)

Don't confuse the issue by using facts.

Re:Good News (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030992)

If the firmware has given us control of PCIe capabilities then it's valid for an operating system to configure ASPM more aggressively than the firmware did. A small number of devices object to this and exhibit various failure modes. Windows provides a mechanism to disable ASPM in the driver, indicated by the Needs=PciASPMOptOut statement in the .inf file. Trawling through Windows drivers has indicated the following set of hardware that disables ASPM in Windows but doesn't currently disable it in Linux. It makes sense for us to mimic Windows in this situation. (V2: send the version that actually builds)

Matthew Garrett [lkml.org] , these patches did get noticed by Phoronix [phoronix.com] .

Re:Good News (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031552)

Yeah... hence the two links to phoronix in TFS...!

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029700)

I don't recall the article quoting anyone as actually "copying or mimicking" Windows so not really sure what the basis is for that particular claim is.

Re:Good News (1)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029740)

There's nothing funny about brain-dead hardware. ASPM - 2011 era Winmodems.

Re:Good News (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030036)

It's funny they had to fix it by copying the method from Windows though.

Unfortunately (as is too often the case) the "bug" was an interaction between the linux kernel and the absolutely fucked state of the BIOS in general, and ACPI in particular.

Because not all boards support PCIe Active State Power Management(a part of the PCIe spec that provides for powering down an unused link to save power), and bad things can happen if you try to use it on a board that doesn't, a board that does support it is supposed to advertise that fact. In practice, a large swath of boards where it works just fine were failing to declare that. The Linux Kernel obligingly didn't try to use it(unless ASPM=force was used). Since what is supposed to happen apparently usually doesn't, they've had to examine the mechanism used by Windows systems to infer whether or no ASPM is good to go, reasoning that vendors are unlikely to ship BIOSes where the Windows default behavior causes horrible things to happen.

ACPI is a bit of a problem child...

Re:Good News (1)

dave87656 (1179347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033552)

It's funny they had to fix it by copying the method from Windows though.

A number of motherboard manufacturers decided not to "advertise" that they supported ASPM and somehow MS knows of this before anyone else. I agree with the approach linux took: mimic Windows behavior to help locate the bug.

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029396)

I'm thinking this will appear in 12.04 LTS (really, great timing), but somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Good News (4, Informative)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029500)

Why?

Canonical is regularly doing kernel upgrades without upgrading the whole distro, this one is a major issue for a lot of people.

MICROSOFT was behind this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38031224)

When I followed the ACPI development from when it first began, it became obvious to me Microsoft would try to influence the ACPI standard and in particular how it was implemented in hardware, so that this very thing would happen

Isnt is obvious Microsoft sat in some backroom thinking up ways to make this kind of thing happen?

Re:MICROSOFT was behind this! (5, Interesting)

UnoriginalBoringNick (1562311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031770)

Something like this perhaps?

http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf [groklaw.net]

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Westorinon; Ben Fathi
Cc: Carl Stork; Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI extensions

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 to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

I turned to Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029504)

After using GNU/Linux since the early 90-ies, i switched to MacBook Air (on my laptops, that is) six months ago to have some battery juice. Please report back when I can have 5-7 hours of battery time on a laptop with GNU/Linux, 'cause then I'll be back.

Re:I turned to Mac (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029580)

If you run Linux on your Air, you'll likely get better battery life than running OS X, although your mileage may vary depending on the distro you run.

Re:I turned to Mac (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029616)

Per your request, I am here to report back: you can have 5-7 hours of battery time on a laptop with GNU/Linux.

You're welcome.

Re:I turned to Mac (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029788)

Per your request, I am here to report back: you can have 5-7 hours of battery time on a laptop with GNU/Linux.

You're welcome.

Somehow I doubt your sincerity.

Re:I turned to Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030062)

I'm not the grandparent poster, so I can't attest to his or her sincerity, but it's possible the statement is true. My notebook* gets 5-7 hours with wireless enabled, up to about 8-10 with limited (or no) wireless use. Of course, it has a 12-cell battery and I'm still using Debian stable with a kernel that predates the power bug's appearance because I didn't want to lose battery life. :)

Battery life with Windows 7 on the same system, in my experience, is similar under normal use (5-7 with wireless, bit more without), but is less effective at aggressive power saving for the long haul use.

* a HP DV6 notebook, core2 duo with intel graphics. I'm sure it would be substantially less with AMD or Nvidia graphics, but I chose battery life over GPU.

Re:I turned to Mac (1)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029792)

My Acer Aspire One [wikipedia.org] lasts that long running Ubuntu, with the 6 cell battery; rated life is 7 hours. I would like to have a fair comparison against a similar netbook design from Apple, but they don't have one.

Re:I turned to Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029920)

Thinkpad X200s, yes, it's older hardware, but it works well.
I get 6-8 hours with a 9-cell battery on Debian stable (the least I had was 5, on Wifi and full backlight).
The only possible downside is no touchpad - but I don't mind, the trackpoint works excellent for me (esp. with scroll wheel emulation).

Re:I turned to Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030498)

Hello! Thinkpad w500 [1900x1200, 25watt processor @45nm, 6M L2 cache} (GNU/Linux) Fedora easily i get 8 hours battery life, 13 if i just stay in the terminal and stay away from programs that use java. Thinkpad w500 is over five years old and to purchase a used one on eBay will cost you $1300 bucks, your MacBook Air sucks jobs D..K.

Re:I turned to Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38031094)

Now behave! You are just breaking apple fanbois hearts by stating facts. Don't do this to them.

overblown (1, Insightful)

markhahn (122033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029588)

this "issue" seemed to be mostly a traffic-getting vehicle for phoronix.

Re:overblown (4, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029730)

Reporting was a bit sensationalist, but the problem was both real and significant. I don't doubt the 14 to 36% regression they're reporting on exists, and is about that large.

Re:overblown (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029836)

Whether it's this or something else, I got much worse battery life with Linux on my laptop than with Windows.

Re:overblown (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029914)

What's wrong with Phoronix?

Re:overblown (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030106)

STEAM'S COMING TO LINUX!!!!!111 IT'S CONFIRMED!!!!!!!111!1

Re:overblown (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032204)

STEAM'S COMING TO LINUX!!!!!111 IT'S CONFIRMED!!!!!!!111!1

Modding AC down was a disservice. This happened and they went all Fox News over it. Though it was sort of a reasonable thing to expect given the evidence they gathered (a reference to Linux in a beta client, if I recall correctly), this shows why it's a good idea not to be overly aggressive in your guesswork when you're dealing with news.

Re:overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030334)

Everything?

Re:overblown (3, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030326)

yes.. My 8 hours of battery life in windows and 5 hours in Linux running PowerTop to disable as much as possible is just sensationalism..

Re:overblown (5, Interesting)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032330)

Yes. It sickes me that Slashdot has followed Phoronix's lead in calling this a Linux bug. It isn't. The bug is in hardware not reporting that it is ASPM (Active State Power Management) capable.

As I understand it, the history of this thing is like:
  1. Linux implements ASPM
  2. This causes some hardware to fail, because it isn't ASPM capable
  3. Linux is fixed to detect if the hardware reports ASPM capability, and doesn't use ASPM if the hardware says it doesn't support that
  4. Michael Larabel of Phoronix notices that Linux power consumption has risen on some hardware, calls it a bug in Linux
  5. Folks investigate, figure out that some hardware reports no ASPM capability, even though it is ASPM capable, and implement a kernel parameter to force Linux to use ASPM, even if the hardware says it doesn't support it
  6. Michael Larabel keeps talking about the Linux power regression writes post after post about how it still hasn't been fixed
  7. Someone figures out how Windows detects ASPM support on hardware that doesn't report it, and implements the same heuristic in Linux
  8. Now, Slashdot claims the Linux bug has been fixed, even though it wasn't a bug in Linux, and Linux has had a workaround for almost as long as we've known about the issue

Seriously, guys. Bad reporting. This is _not_ what I come to Slashdot for. There are hundreds of sites that will give me half truths, common misconceptions, and the occasional nugget of truth. Strive to be better than those.

Re:overblown (1)

Lisias (447563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032660)

please mod parent up.

I utterly regrets have spent all of mine.

This can't be! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029634)

But weren't we told by some that this "bug" didn't actually exist and was just FUD? How does one "fix" a non-existent issue? Oh right, it was just the usual freetard deflection of "it's teh manufacturers fault!" lameness.

Re:This can't be! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029906)

Surely it's not the manufactures fault for ignoring the standards they claim to support. It must be up to the OS developers to figure out what parts of the hardware are broken. /sarcasm

This isn't a Linux bug fix. It's a workaround in Linux for hardware bugs. It's just as broken on Windows it's just that Windows doesn't use it.

Bad Windows + Bad hardware = Linux's fault? Clearly everyone should emulate the defective behavior and employ reverse engineering to figure out just what that defective behavior just might be? This just another example of the destructive influence of the Windows monoculture.

The only lameness here is the BROKEN HARDWARE happens to work on Windows.

Do you know why broken RAM modules work on Linux? The user can tel Linux not to use the part of RAM with the stuck bits. Do you know why broken RAM modules work on Windows? Because everyone assumes the random lock ups is just Windows' normal behavior. The result? RAM sticks don't get sent back to the manufacture and everyone not running Windows has to put up with how shitty hardware has become just because it's "normal" for Windows fuck up. But try to tell that to a Wintard like you.

Eat shit and die. (I see you have the first part down. Move on to step two--quickly.)

Re:This can't be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029964)

The internet tough guy act is pretty funny, little freetard.

Re:This can't be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030076)

Well, truth is tough, big wintard. You have something in your teeth.

Re:This can't be! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38031944)

Here's a truth: your mom has nice tits, I know because I stuck my 12" black cock in between them last night, now she's my bitch. You better find a good hiding place in that basement, because you're next, Freetard. You are next.

About fucking time... (4, Funny)

The Evil Brain (2031868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029652)

...my battery's almost dead.

Embrace, extend, exert your battery to death... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029798)

Just another attempt for Microsoft to sabotage Linux by forcing manufacturers to implement faulty 'standards'. Maybe it's time to occupy Redmond...

Re:Embrace, extend, exert your battery to death... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030032)

I pointed this out above and was down-modded.

Be careful with ASPM... (4, Informative)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029862)

The onboard intel nic on my intel motherboard randomly disappears with ASPM enabled due I think to a hardware issue.

For me it is pcie_aspm=off or all hell breaks loose.

Re:Be careful with ASPM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030158)

too bad bugzilla is down, otherwise you would be able to point to that bug report you filed, right?

Re:Be careful with ASPM... (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030636)

For that matter (and obviously I'm being too lazy to look this up right now), is there not a way to turn it off on a per-device level rather than system wide?

Re:Be careful with ASPM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030754)

Yup, that is exactly what is being worked on right now (see LKML).

Re:Be careful with ASPM... (1)

knifeyspooney (623953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030836)

As I understand it, that kind of problem is exactly what motivated the kernel change that Phoronix called a regression. All hell would break loose on some systems if ASPM was enabled, so the kernel developers disabled it by default. That change led to increased stability at the cost of decreased energy efficiency. If the regression is fixed, it should mean systems like yours can use ASPM safely now.

report it to the kernel developers (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030838)

There is a blacklist for individual devices, including some Intel NICs. If yours isn't on the list, maybe it should be.

Re:report it to the kernel developers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38031024)

It probably is. He is likely to be using something very old and unpatched, Intel has blacklisted L0's on their buggy chips for a while, and even the fix for L1's is not that new and is available on the latest stable kernels.

Re:Be careful with ASPM... (3, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031050)

Possibly already fixed: "Some drivers (e.g. the e1000 network driver) have already switched off the ASPM where the PCI-E v1.1 feature is known to not work" Phoronix [phoronix.com] If not, report it and that driver will get ASPM blacklisted.

Does anyone else find it sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029878)

...that the highest goal most projects strive for, is to imitate something mediorce or lame (like Windows)?
I mean not that it's not nice to have this fixed, and not that I'm not thankful for getting something as great as Linux for totally free.
But how about doing something *better*?
Because you can not ever win a race, by always following the ones in front of you. Especially if the one you follow is the most notorious imitator ever.

Is it simply a total lack of imagination?
Or do they fear that a few loud people/idiots might dislike them if they don't fall in line with the great herd or cattle?

Or what else am I missing? Because I know for a fact that we can do so much better than either MS or Apple. because we don't have to follow corporate profit rules. We have no PHBs requesting idiotic things.
We should rule this business like gods..

And here we are, running after... Windows. Or OS X. Or MS Office. :(
I brings tears to my eyes.

Re:Does anyone else find it sad... (2)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029942)

You can think of "better" when you will have "just as good". Besides, here, hardware manufacturers are to blame as they implement ASPM the way windows understands it, not the way standart sees it.

As for striving to imitate — they are fixing things so that they can work, nobody broke anything, just a workaround for the hardware that is "out there" and will be for quite some time.

Re:Does anyone else find it sad... (1)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029972)

The broken hardware is broken. It only works the Windows way.

Re:Does anyone else find it sad... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030804)

...that the highest goal most projects strive for, is to imitate something mediorce or lame (like Windows)?

If X does something better than Y, its stupid and self-defeating to ignore it beacuse you dislike X.

The goal is functionality, and it seems that in this case X was doing it better, so it was well worth investigating why.

Re:Does anyone else find it sad... (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033326)

There is no "better" in this case. It's a workaround for brain damaged hardware.

Don't feed the troll (5, Informative)

mcover (1653873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029946)

This is making Linux look bad without reason. Before the whole "Linux Power Regression" coming up and being advertised as a problem by Phoronix, I did enjoy reading the occasional article (Benchmarks, etc.) by Phoronix, but after this whole thing I have lost complete respect for Phoronix.

It's not a Linux bug but BIOS misbehaving. Linux is simply playing it safe.

Summary: http://www.fewt.com/2011/09/about-kernel-30-power-regression-myth.html [fewt.com] (been posted before in older threads)

Re:Don't feed the troll (0)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031724)

yeah, battery life goes from 8hrs to 5hrs on the same system and "Linux is simply playing it safe".

Re:Don't feed the troll (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031916)

No. Battery life goes from 8hrs to 5hrs because Linux is actually "following the spec".

Hacks and reverse engineering should not be necessary.

The fact that this kind of nonsense still goes on in 2011 is not a black eye for Linux really. Although that's certainly what Microsoft intends. The clueless will certainly oblige them.

Re:Don't feed the troll (2, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032518)

Be that as it may, things appear to work fine on Windows. On Linux they don't. Hence the problem is Linux's problem. It's unfortunate that we have to work around boneheaded hardware and Microsoft's insistence on not documenting anything publicly. However that's the way things are. We can complain all we want about hardware manufacturers doing things wrong, but unless we can convince them to fix it (and 1% of their users whining about something that works just fine in Windows is not likely to get anywhere), it's our problem. And it is, from the users' pov a regression in the kernel. Under 2.6.37 battery was fine, under 2.6.38 it wasn't. It doesn't matter that the old kernel was doing things wrong and maybe dangerously. A regression that corrects behavior but still gets things wrong (the end result) is still a regression.

I would think that Red Hat understands this (and it seems they do as the developer who created the patch to fix the logic works for them), but in Fedora you still can't load custom DSTDT firmware tables so my laptop still requires me to press a key repeatedly to get through the bootup sequence. In the bug report the devs basically said, why should a normal user have to mess with this. It's not our fault anyway. The BIOS is buggy (which is true). But yet the problem from the user's POV is that it's Fedora's fault as it works fine in Windows.

Re:Don't feed the troll (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033134)

No. Battery life goes from 8hrs to 5hrs because Linux is actually "following the spec".

Hacks and reverse engineering should not be necessary.

In an ideal world, yes.

However, there are several truths. First, most developers are crap. Yes, even you. This goes for hardware developers as well.

You'll find all sorts of hacks in Windows just to work around developer problems. For proof - see Vista - Microsoft basically redid a bunch of stuff to be cleaner and removed the hacks, and things broke horribly. All Windows 7 did was come after Vista where the worst of the buggy programs have been updated to properly work under Vista and 7.

Yes, this also includes working around bugs in hardware and drivers - DirectX has various workarounds for drivers that lie about capabilities (and various probes for detecting such drivers).

Hell, even if Windows implemented "to the spec" and adhered to it, it would have to implement workarounds because devices that don't implement it properly would just find ways to disable it. And yes, hardware manufacturers have been known to do all sorts of those things. (Remember the unsigned drivers thing? Some crafty manufacturers actually click "Continue" automatically. Others will actually use the test signing keys and call it a day, leaving users with the "test keys" warning).

Re:Don't feed the troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38032864)

It would be nice if Phoronix started pushing headlines like: "X years have gone by and no BIOS patch for the ThinkPad in sight." But lets face it. He's just another clueless journalist.

solving the wrong problem (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030086)

caused high power usage for many Intel Linux systems

it really is a simple fix. ;)

hey MSFT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030798)

time to sue the shit out of RHAT!

I bet it will be advertised as "patented" by MSFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38030806)

I bet it will be advertised as "patented" by Microsoft or one of their lawyers, in order to convince manufacturers to pay them big money.... again....

Which Kernel Version? (2)

steevven1 (1045978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38030922)

Which kernel version from kernel.org contains the patch? 3.2-rc1? Or none yet? Please don't answer unless you're quite sure.

Hopeful anticipation (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38031748)

The usual fix/workaround doesn't work on my Thinkpad T60. Even though I execute "pcie_aspm=force", I get this:

[ 0.000000] PCIe ASPM is forcedly enabled

but then...

[ 0.164778] ACPI FADT declares the system doesn't support PCIe ASPM, so disable it ...
[ 1.269089] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: Disabling ASPM L0s L1

So I'm left to wonder, does the system actually support PCIe ASPM and the kernel just doesn't know it's there or is there entirely something else at fault?

Re:Hopeful anticipation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38032528)

It probably does. Several e1000 hardware revisions are blacklisted because they randomly drop out when ASPM is enabled.

Great (1, Funny)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38032532)

by mimicking Microsoft Windows' power behavior in the Linux kernel

Microsoft's lawyers probably love that description.

See previsous article "Why Use Windows?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38032632)

Self-explanitory.

Apple IS 5 Saved by Matthew Garrett of Red Hat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38032730)

Lovely.

Ergo. Nobody, i.e. No one at Apple has a clue to the iPhone Battery Drain but Matthew Garrett of Red Hat does have a clue and even much more than a clue since he wrote the code that Apple stole but no one at Appke has a clue and neither a hope in Hell of figuring this out in the next 120 days becasue Apple does not emply people who are educated in programming languages i.e. coding!

Apple has become a "Middle Management" company. Such a company is populated by misanthropes and neanderthals who have little, i.e NO knowledge of anything let along the things they are hopng to try to sell to the public at highly elevated prices which are ridiculous by all comon sense measures.

What a lout.

==--999kkgnfiewopka;'dxvjksdhzfdsyfi8aysakgd;l
j ljh

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?