Comment 26 for bug 1503731

Hi Christopher,

Why did you ask to file a new bug to be made regarding to kernel?
I have reported a similar bug and it seems that at least one of the issues is quite throughly pinned down to that one that can be worked around with the cstate=1 or 2 for some others. Bay Trail and some successor platforms are affected.
Wouldn't we prefer to keep things centralised?
Does Canonical have any contacts with intel to spearpoint this horrible bug?
I have seen thousands of users complaining and those are just the ones that do report.
So this is very likely to be related to:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109051

The bisect of the kernel commit might to be :
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88012#c23

Somebody at least pitched it to intel and I replied:
https://communities.intel.com/thread/60984

Please do not ask many people to bisect kernels if it might already be done, it's very daunting and there is no point for the people affected by the bug, right?

Current work arounds are running a pre-3.17 kernel and use cstate=1 (this works for my Yoga 2 11 but affects battery life quite a lot):
http://askubuntu.com/questions/749349/how-to-set-intel-idle-max-cstate-1
or for some cstate=2.

For anyone looking for more workarounds, checkout the bugzilla.kernel.org bug, there are some more options.

And PLEASE, ANYONE having contacts with intel, alert them!
I am not sure if they are aware of this issue and I can't imagine they are not, but it would certainly help to try and put the pressure up.

Thanks, hope this helps.