On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:26:48 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:47:25 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com wrote:
A rather popular problem reported by new users on irc is very
laggy performance out of the box. The default 'ondemand' governor
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:57:22 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com wrote:
(there needs to be a power-saving alternative to 'performance' that's
selectable without recompiling the kernel),
Are you retracting your objection against 'interactive' then?
The main objection is that
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:22:42 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:57:22 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com wrote:
(there needs to be a power-saving alternative to 'performance' that's
selectable without recompiling the kernel),
Are you
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:04:09 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you are bikeshedding this defconfig stuff since a long time ago,
Really do I? Maybe I just have voiced the same opinion in the past, that the
best way forward is to carry the least-possible amount of
A rather popular problem reported by new users on irc is very
laggy performance out of the box. The default 'ondemand' governor
is too slow to react on increased demand for processing power
without extra tuning. The extra tuning needs extra efforts
from the users. Not to mention that they have to
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:47:25 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com wrote:
A rather popular problem reported by new users on irc is very
laggy performance out of the box. The default 'ondemand' governor
is too slow to react on increased demand for processing power
without extra
