Comment 355 for bug 1690085
Revision history for this message
|
|
#355 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
e3ace39
(Get the code!)
(In reply to Jonathan from comment #265)
> (In reply to Kai-Heng Feng from comment #263)
> > If there's no noticeable power consumption increase when Package C6 gets
> > disabled, and we are sure that it really workarounds the hard lockup, I'll
> > send the patch to upstream.
>
> What exactly would this mean (Linux newbie here)? Would this mean this would
> be active by default on Linux (C6 disabled for Ryzen/TR/Epyc)? Because
> electricity is bloody expensive here and the 5-10% power consumption
> difference would matter to me.
Kai-Heng Feng seems to mulishly ignore the fact, that not *all people* need this workaround. I repeatedly wrote, that this *must be switchable*, as opt in e.g.
But before anything is done, it must be proven in general, that the fix is correct at all - means, that it really addresses C6 package and nothing else.
My tests here have been shown, that there isn't any difference between enabled / disabled C6 package on voltages using zenstates.py. Did it really address the C6 package? But I'm not sure, if it does the same as the kernel patch.