Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC, submitted by tyrione
Thread beginning with comment 444532
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by jacquouille on Fri 8th Oct 2010 17:24
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
GCC is standard-compliant if you ask it to be so
Well, according to Phoronix's results, a tickless kernel alone won't magically improve power management, it just makes the way for future power management improvements (like pausing some daemons more or less aggressively when their presence is not absolutely necessary) : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=651&num=1
Edited 2010-10-08 17:08 UTC